The Examiner: Election Tracker

[Torie]

Dear Jas:

The thing about the SoFA office, is that if one is unhappy with the nomination, one needs to posit an alternative. One can't replace someone with no one.

Putting that aside, in all candor, I was a bit unhappy myself with the nominee's deportment during the recent litigation involving himself, as he became a bit too defensive, and at one point characterizing our Supreme Court nominee as a "perjurer," or something along those lines. I expect a retraction of that, and an apology, before I can consider giving him my vote.

[minionofmidas]

There seems to have been a media blackout regarding the passage of the December Elections Amendment, though.

[Јas]

There seems to have been a media blackout regarding the passage of the December Elections Amendment, though.

I'll put lack of coverage on that down to my new-fangled 'media blackout'/FEC-lite conspiracy that seems to have been easily seen through by Atlasians the paper being on break while this was put to the voters.

[Јas]

The Examiner

6 July 2008

Inks’s Nomination Blothched?

With the opening of the Senate confirmation thread, the nomination of Inks.LWC for SoFA has found itself in significant difficulty. Indeed, no firm Aye votes are currently known among the 9 Senators currently in office.

Following definitive expressions of no confidence from Senators Wixted and Trondheim (see The Examiner, 4 July) a string of further Senators have given firm indications that they are at best in need of strong convincing from the nominee. Senator Torie (i-PAC) in a letter to The Examiner explained his displeasure with Inks’s behaviour during the recent high-profile Sam Spade v SoFA case which followed from Inks’s management of the General Election. The Senator wrote, “in all candor, I was a bit unhappy myself with the nominee's deportment during the recent litigation involving himself, as he became a bit too defensive, and at one point characterizing our Supreme Court nominee as a ‘perjurer,’ or something along those lines. I expect a retraction of that, and an apology, before I can consider giving him my vote.” (Full letter reproduced below.)

Sen. Rockefeller Republican, who has been a newfound ally of President Moderate, has walked back on his previous comments. Speaking to the chamber, the Senator said: “I believe that I'll have to retract the statements I made less than 24 hours ago. We cannot have a Secretary of Forum Affairs that closes the Booth's at the wrong time and produces illegitimate results.

Although I believe that Inks can overcome his past inabilities, with the prime and only example being the last Presidential Election, I believe he can become an excellent selection for the position. However I will not give vote for him as Secretary of Forum Affairs because I feel sorrow for Mr. Inks. He will have to do some explaining, Brady style to get my vote.”

Senator CultureKing, another Senator who has sought to work with President Moderate, has also expressed strong reservations about the nomination stating:
“I would definately need a good amount of convincing to accept and support this nomination, especially in light of mistakes made during the last election.”

Senator Meeker has also expressed his disapproval saying: “I must give this one a loving but firm "No". His tenure during this past election, to put it lightly, worries me.

If Inks can give a thorough explanantion of everything that happened and prove that he was not at fault, I may reconsider. Until then I cannot support his nomination.”

With so much negativity expressed, the nomination of Inks must be seen as being at the very least as of dubious potential and at worst potentially the strongest vote of no confidence a Senate has ever given an executive nomination. With many friends of the President expressing such strong concern and only DownWithTheLeft speaking up for the nominee in the Senate, The Examiner would petition the President to reconsider the nomination.  

----

PPT Nominations

The position of President Pro Tempore of the Sneate is not one which usually draws significant interest, but following the opening of nominations by Vice President Ebowed yesterday, it seems the decision shall go to a rare vote.

Following the oft criticised term of outgoing PPT Meeker, Sen. Rockefeller Republican nominated himself in a move which he had announced during the campaign. Rocky’s NLC colleague, Sen. Colin Wixted though has also submitted his own nomination for the post and notably gained the support of Sen. Lewis Trondheim.

Either way, The Examiner is hopeful that the incoming PPT will be able to shake up the Senate and drag it back into focusing on the legislative agenda.

----

Letter To The Editor

Dear Jas:

The thing about the SoFA office, is that if one is unhappy with the nomination, one needs to posit an alternative. One can't replace someone with no one.

Putting that aside, in all candor, I was a bit unhappy myself with the nominee's deportment during the recent litigation involving himself, as he became a bit too defensive, and at one point characterizing our Supreme Court nominee as a "perjurer," or something along those lines. I expect a retraction of that, and an apology, before I can consider giving him my vote.

[Peter]

Letter to the Editor:

Dear Jas,

I think the many voices who have spoken out against Inks are too quick to judge and hold him to an unnecessarily exacting standard. His "crimes" in the last election are as follows:

1. Opening the voting booth at a time completely allowed by Law, but not traditionally used. Whist he should have better advertised this fact, e.g. with a thread in the forum stating the closing time in the subject line, he did nothing different from other SoFAs in not giving advance notice of the time.
2. Closing the booth a few hours after actual ending time. Whist it is never ideal that a certification is delayed, we have had delayed certifications before, and it usually only makes people tetchy when there are ballots in dispute (as we had this time). Ultimately, as long as certification does occur within about 2 days, I don't think it actually matters that much.
3. The manner of counting votes for Sam Spade. He surely cannot be blamed for this - we have never had a candidate who deregistered just before the election (which could only be interepreted by voters as a move to withdraw, even if it didn't have that legal effect necessarily), and then go on to win. He was in untested waters, and picked a route which had some logic to it. OK, it wasn't totally legally sound and ultimately was overturned in the Courts, but in a certification situation, one has little time to seek out advice, you just have to pick a path and go with it.
4. His conduct during the case - having reviewed all of his posts during the period, I can find no outrageous conduct. The only thing I can find close to an accusation against Sam Sapde is this:

I'd just like to respond to Torie's response to my brief.  It could in fact happen.  In fact, it almost happened in this instance.  The only reason that Sam came back is because he realized that he had an interesting court case.

I would tend to agree that this is exactly why Sam came back.

The nominee is qualified - he has good knowledge of a complicated system of Laws that now govern our elections, and whilst it is not perfect, it will improve with experience. I believe the nominee is aware of his failings and will do his best to learn from them.

Yours sincerely

Peter

[Torie]

Letter to the Editor:

Dear Jas,


Just for the record, in response to Peter's letter, below is the comment to which I referred.

The lawsuit will be more about whether being deregistered invalidates the deregistrant as a valid candidate or not, giving when the effecting of the derigistration occurred. If you are interested in this legal stuff, the thread I think is really very good.

We've had issues like this before - it was always something like, "If I'm not a valid candidate while people are voting, but I am when I'd assume office, do votes for me count."  That's similar to this case, but we may not have court precedent on any of those.

On the other hand, the Attorney General could CLEARLY go after Sam for perjury for his 2nd statement.

[Peter]

Its a comment clearly made at a time of typical Atlasian intensity. Inks is correct that Sam was making a false claim to the Court, however, I think that Sam simply misunderstood the situation at the time, and later withdrew that part of his case. I don't think it is so heinous that it actually matters.

[Torie]

Calling someone a liar, i.e.,  with an intent to deceive, I don't think is a trivial matter. It bothers me. We shall see how it plays out.  In my about 30,000 posts on the internet, I have never used that term as to any poster. Maybe it is just a little "tick" of mine.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm sure the Examiner will have something to say (probably not positive) about me being back in the senate

[ilikeverin]

I am still absolutely flummoxed as to why I was never sued during my tenure as SoFA.

[MasterJedi]

I am still absolutely flummoxed as to why I was never sued during my tenure as SoFA.

Joe Republic had stronger supporters IIRC.

[Јas]

I'm sure the Examiner will have something to say (probably not positive) about me being back in the senate

I have no real problem with you getting back to the Senate (though it's fair to say I'm not likely to agree with many of your votes or bills).

I do however take considerable issue with the method by which your return occured which, though you clearly have supported/pushed, was not ultimately your decision - so I don't consider it to be you who is ultimately at fault.

[Ebowed]

Calling someone a liar, i.e.,  with an intent to deceive, I don't think is a trivial matter. It bothers me.

Don't take this forum too seriously or you'll never get out of it alive.

[minionofmidas]

I am still absolutely flummoxed as to why I was never sued during my tenure as SoFA.

Joe Republic had stronger supporters IIRC.

*and* the facts on his side.

[Sam Spade]

I don't particularly care very much about what Inks said.  I do oppose his nomination, for a whole host of other reasons, however.

[Јas]

The Examiner

7 July 2008

AHDuke Overrules Supreme Court

Southeastern Governor, AHDuke has decided to ignore the judgment of the Supreme Court (Sam Spade v. SoFA) which mandated the filling by election of the vacancy arising from the decision in that case. In a rather brazen move, he has purported to appoint DownWithTheLeft to fill the void declaring that “he has the experience and track record to do the job”.  DWTL was quick to swear-in and offer votes on motions and matters at hand. It is as yet unclear if those presiding over the Senate will recognise him as the official Senator for the Southeast.

----

Inks Stands Firm

Following a series of Senators expressing their opposition to the nomination of Inks.LWC for the post of Secretary of Forum Affairs (see The Examiner, 6 July), the nominee has sought to offer a firm defence of his position in the Senate hearings.

Inks’s has refused to bow to Sen. Torie’s wish for a retraction of Ink’s charge during the Sam Spade case that the plaintiff was a liar who should be charged with perjury. Speaking in the Senate he said:
“He made false statements in the Court.  If we are to consider those statements as being under oath, then it was perjury.  If he wasn't under oath, then he made careless lie. Either way, I will not retract my statements.  If that costs me the confirmation vote, so be it.”

Ink’s later charged Sen. Meeker with hypocricy:
“Senator Meeker, why have you not denounced Governor Sensei for opening the Mideast's ballot late, yet you criticize me for opening the ballot in an unorthodox, yet legal way?” 

Outside the Senate, in a letter to The Examiner, Ink’s has received the strong backing of outgoing AG Peter who described Inks’s as “qualified” and sought to excuse Inks’s errors in his conduct of the General Election regarding the legal issue surrounding the timing of opening the booth; the delay in certification; the counting of the Sam Spade votes, and his behaviour during the ensuing court case.

----

Moderate Vetoes Kyoto

President Moderate has vetoed the Senate’s decision to ratify the Kyoto Treaty on climate change. Explaining his decision, he described the Treaty as “out of date” and “a non-binding feel good contract”. A decision is awaited on whether or not the Senate will attempt to override the veto.

----

Return to September 10th Bill

President Moderate has also redrafted the Return to September 10th Bill and returned it to the Senate (per the 19th Amendment) removing the provisions on ‘Telecommunications Immunity Clarification’ which sought to prosecution of those telecommunication companies which aided wiretapping post-9/11.

[Ebowed]

The provisions removed did NOT support the law-breaking telecommunication companies.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The provisions removed did NOT support the law-breaking telecommunication companies.

Right.  They called for the active prosecution of those companies.

[bullmoose88]

Interesting now that Ernest has left the court with regards to election vs. appointment.

[Sam Spade]

Interesting now that Ernest has left the court with regards to election vs. appointment.

True.  Of course, someone has to bring a lawsuit first.

[bullmoose88]

Interesting now that Ernest has left the court with regards to election vs. appointment.

True.  Of course, someone has to bring a lawsuit first.

Well...given the last decision, i don't know what good it would do as there arent enough votes either way yet.  Until you're confirmed, presumably.

[Sam Spade]

Interesting now that Ernest has left the court with regards to election vs. appointment.

True.  Of course, someone has to bring a lawsuit first.

Well...given the last decision, i don't know what good it would do as there arent enough votes either way yet.  Until you're confirmed, presumably.

Then, the most likely conclusion is that a lawsuit won't arise until someone different is elected for the Senator's spot than was appointed for the spot.  If that occurs.  Or maybe gporter wants input on something...

[DownWithTheLeft]

Duke does not seem to be in conflict, the SC ruled that the seat is vacant.  The seat will eventually be filled by a SE, but until then it is a vacant regional seat, something that is to be filled by the governor.  Personally, that is the part I do not understand about the ruling.  If Spade was ineligible to serve, Duke should be able to appoint someone for the full term.

[Torie]

Interesting now that Ernest has left the court with regards to election vs. appointment.

True.  Of course, someone has to bring a lawsuit first.

Probably someone will file a lawsuit over the enforceability of a law which only passed due to DWTL's vote. In the litigation, it could be that the Court will deem the prior order errant, and disregard it.

[TomC]

Interesting now that Ernest has left the court with regards to election vs. appointment.

True.  Of course, someone has to bring a lawsuit first.

Probably someone will file a lawsuit over the enforceability of a law which only passed due to DWTL's vote. In the litigation, it could be that the Court will deem the prior order errant, and disregard it.

And impeach the one remaining justice who added nothing except the deciding vote.