Things to know when you watch the video

1.    The debate is intended to showcase a format that will be duplicated for every show; the debate performances themselves will most likely never be duplicated.

2.    The debaters themselves are more confrontational in / on other venues than they were for the debate. (Curt Levey is the Republican Party’s point man for keeping liberal judges and their “judicial activism” off the Supreme and lower Federal Courts; Professor Roosevelt wrote a book labeling judicial activism a “myth”). They will not appear on the show in the future.  They volunteered their time to memorialize an alternative to what is out there now.

3.    The debate questions are constructed to eliminate the opportunity for debaters to question the other person’s argument.  For instance, the “How would your ideal Justice vote” structure in the debate clip you are about to view precludes anything other than a defense of your own position.

4.    The key to the debates is the Judge.  The Judge is responsible for challenging the debaters.  In this capacity, the Judge is a proxy for the American public. The debate questions will be answered directly, and those answers will be scrutinized by the Judge in order to ensure accountability.  Furthermore, his follow-up questions will not be evenly distributed; he will identify issues as he sees fit and follow-up accordingly. This is an oral argument format, not a traditional debate format. 

5.    Never again will people appear on the show with the type of reverence and respect for a New York State Supreme Court Trial Justice that these debaters demonstrated.  We did feel that it was important, however, for the pilot to showcase the rules.  We also managed to film an hour-long debate that addressed some of the most divisive issues our nation faces, and did so with the level of dignity that is glaringly absent on television now.

6.    When the most recognized people from the right and left take the stage on a particular issue – imagine Lou Dobbs and Geraldo Riviera debating immigration – there will be no shortage of compelling and passionate positions.  The difference will be that, for once, they will not be criticizing each other.  They will have to advocate actual laws, and those laws will have to withstand the hard questions of a jurist who is revered for his ability to relentlessly ask them. 

7.    Three days after the debate, Factcheck.org or another nonpartisan organization will assess and make public the truth or falsity of all factual statements made by the debaters.

8.    The purpose of filming a restrained, informative pilot is to insulate the show from the inevitable charges that will flow from the right and left when the Judge enforces the rules.  We will always be able to say, “Look at the pilot. It was dignified and substantive because everyone involved respected the process.”  That is what we are ultimately seeking in each debate.  If and when a debater grandstands or substitutes talking points for answers, he or she will be risking a hair-trigger rebuke, on a national stage, from a Judge who believes that Americans are entitled to substance.  The  reflexive “Jerry Springer” / “Judge Judy” caricatures that follow will be dismissed out of hand.

For a sample of the type of debate that we should be having on health care reform right now – and on every other important issue that confronts this nation – please watch the video below.