Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As an originalist I believe that the court should support the founding fathers' intent. The fact that Arizona was not placed within a region in the 4th constitution clearly means Arizona was meant to be independent. How could a website full of electoral map nerds miss an entire state??

As one of those founders, I can assure that was not the case. I am sure every other founder as well as statements dating back to mid May will verify that. It was a typo, and of course you are bringing out your patented loophole abuse to stir up trouble again. If you would use your emense skills to help this game instead of trying to break it, everyone would be so much happier. Either let it go and let others have a chance or return and as a constructive participant rather than a legal terrorist.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do you need me to return and set them all straight?

I don't know, "Enver Pasha" might get our forces destroyed in deserts of AZ.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am amazed that nearly 50% of Bacon's King argument rests on a defense of previous non-enforcement, which just a week ago he advocated so forcibly against when making the case for a runoff over a first preference winner.

With all do respect to BK and the former Secretaries, I must say I find that argument completely weak. You don't need precedent to justify the enforcement of an explicit ban on something, and failure of past Secretaries to do so is matter of their competence in office, not some not novel legal machinations on Rpryor's part.

Likewise the notion of their being necessary some kind of intent for an attack to be an attack and an attack to be campaigning. It was by their own expressed intent, to express disapproval of the VP choice, ie part of a ticket. That constitutes negative attack on said ticket (because you elect them by the ticket), and irregardless of how they voted and completely in tune with BK's own posted definition of the term, constitutes a form of campaigning. The only way to campaign in Atlasia is by posting statements for or against someone.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If the standard is "will it influence people" I assert that it is highly unlikely anyone was influenced by BRTD and Hashemite's insult of Kingpoleon, because they were simultaneously voting for him at the same time.

if anything, it's more likely that a viewer will think "wow, the blair/kingpoleon ticket is such a good choice that they're even getting the votes of people who hate them!" No one will decide against voting for a candidate based on hesitant ballot commentary from someone who still voted for the candidate in question anyway.

So you might say the statement had the effect of campaigning for them?  

I really wish they ballots had been looked at in August. However, as Bacon so eloquently articulated last week, previous non-enforcement does not justify future non-enforcement, otherwise law be damned and we would not have had a runoff.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I do not have a position on Bacon King v. SoFE, partly because I haven't taken the time to review the law and see what the right answer is, but this interpretation of our Constitution:

Secondly, the constitution gives the Congress the right to set requirements for activity. It does not state posting activity and it doesn't limit what kind of activity it could be applied to. Therefore, Congress has broad authority to define such activity and could therefore define both lack of activity or engaging in certain other activities (lack campaigning in the voting booth) as being prohibited and still consist of a "requirement for activity" as stated in Article I, Section 4.

genuinely disturbs me. This basically amounts to saying, 'activity means whatever the Congress says it means,' which opens the door for a train of abuses that could potentially disenfranchise huge swaths of the population. Speaking as the person who actually wrote Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, I can assure you that this is not what the framers intended.

For the record, I don't think the SoFE's actions violate the Constitution, but I don't think the reason he gave is the correct one either. "Requirements for activity" refers to a very specific measure of participation on the forum at large, and not to an ethereal concept that Congress is free to mangle and redefine at will.

I think at this point, the section is going to need to be amended regardless of what the outcome is.

Do keep in mind though, that Congress would still be bound by the rest of the Constitution including equal protections, so Congress would be in a difficult position to pass a law disenfranchising voters with undue burdens (which a prohibition on campaigning is not), without also running into other Constitutional barriers.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must say, I am disappointed that NE case went directly to the Supreme Court, though I do understand the reasoning for it.

This was one concern I had when we merged the judicial branches of the regional and federal level. Yes, it reduced the total number of offices by 1, but my hope was that the regional Justices would act first in their capacity over matters, even when the federal constitution is involved. And then appeal occur if necessary.

I understand skipping it for simplicity, but this is a game and there are few cases anymore.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must say, I am disappointed that NE case went directly to the Supreme Court, though I do understand the reasoning for it.

This was one concern I had when we merged the judicial branches of the regional and federal level. Yes, it reduced the total number of offices by 1, but my hope was that the regional Justices would act first in their capacity over matters, even when the federal constitution is involved. And then appeal occur if necessary.

I understand skipping it for simplicity, but this is a game and there are few cases anymore.

I understand your reasoning Yankee but this is just slowling the process as it is likely it would end up to the whole SC in the end.

And what is the problem with that? I mean I get what the problem is from the perspective of efficiency, but doesn't it set a precedent that really weakens the role of the Regional Justices?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must say, I am disappointed that NE case went directly to the Supreme Court, though I do understand the reasoning for it.

This was one concern I had when we merged the judicial branches of the regional and federal level. Yes, it reduced the total number of offices by 1, but my hope was that the regional Justices would act first in their capacity over matters, even when the federal constitution is involved. And then appeal occur if necessary.

I understand skipping it for simplicity, but this is a game and there are few cases anymore.

I understand your reasoning Yankee but this is just slowling the process as it is likely it would end up to the whole SC in the end.

And what is the problem with that? I mean I get what the problem is from the perspective of efficiency, but doesn't it set a precedent that really weakens the role of the Regional Justices?

The problem with that? Slowling the process. Just imagine if this could change the result of an election.

Is there an election currently at stake?

There is a such a thing as an expedited process for emergencies, yes. But in the absence of that, the normal process should be proceeded with.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must say, I am disappointed that NE case went directly to the Supreme Court, though I do understand the reasoning for it.

This was one concern I had when we merged the judicial branches of the regional and federal level. Yes, it reduced the total number of offices by 1, but my hope was that the regional Justices would act first in their capacity over matters, even when the federal constitution is involved. And then appeal occur if necessary.

I understand skipping it for simplicity, but this is a game and there are few cases anymore.

I understand your reasoning Yankee but this is just slowling the process as it is likely it would end up to the whole SC in the end.

And what is the problem with that? I mean I get what the problem is from the perspective of efficiency, but doesn't it set a precedent that really weakens the role of the Regional Justices?

The problem with that? Slowling the process. Just imagine if this could change the result of an election.

Is there an election currently at stake?

There is a such a thing as an expedited process for emergencies, yes. But in the absence of that, the normal process should be proceeded with.

I don't think so but still, I don't see the point of intentionnally makign the process longer.

Then why have them?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

FWIW the entire system is rather confusing, something I found out was...  if a non-Southern citizen is suing the South then it goes to the Supreme Court, but if it's a Southern Citizen it goes to the regional Judge

It wasn't my preferred setup.

I only had one concern regarding the court and to this day I am still shocked it didn't happen, but grateful none the less.

While we on the subject, here is a rather ironic exchange on complexity:

The biggest problem with it would be complexity.

Is complexity inherently bad? This forum has a lot of smart people, ostensibly. There's no reason why they couldn't wrap their heads around a little more bureaucracy. People aren't on a politics forum if they can't handle complexity, in other words.

Well, here's another angle. If I can mock up a well-worded proposal, will some Senators be willing to consider that over what has been presented here? I'm frankly not a fan of terms, at all, and I'd like to see a little more discussion of any alternatives (including mine ).

Ironic, because allegedly, complexity was my beck and call according to a certain group of people. The same group largely, that put Tyrion in office.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will note that I fully expected the special election to be the following weekend and was surprised to find it underway when I came on early Friday morning

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Quick someone get my coffee and popcorn.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This gonna be good.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Maybe Justice Gass will have to recuse himself from the 1184AZ v Peebs case on party merger. He is quoted in the filing suit when he changed back registration to Labor and didn't like the automatic party change so it's difficult to look impartial.

Almost four months after the merger is kind of late to make it illegal, it's been ok for many months but it's not anymore. Maybe it's a case in theory for fututre mergers. 

I was actually organizing a lawsuit with Bacon King on much the same grounds back in March, but he disappeared during the discussions.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

good to be back 

December 8th is a magical day. You get to be Attorney General again and I got to administer Senate stuff for the first time since July 2014.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

While the bump was in relation to another case, I'm kind of surprised the Supreme Court has taken no action on tack50 vs Wulfric; whether to dismiss or accept the case.

Now this is something that reminds me of 2013.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Here we go again.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Probably good to bump this just in case.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Not seeing much activity re Politics Fan v The South.  Wondering how close we might be to a ruling. 

They said they would issue both rulings at the same time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, how long until we can start launching impeachment proceedings against all 5 justices? 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=173021.0

Three weeks from final arguments was what it took in 2013.

Oh lord, here we go again! BUCKLE UP ATLASIA!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

People need to act like they actually care about this game.  

So applicable to game at large today.

Reading that thread is amazing.

Zuwo endorsing term limits, Adam defending Opebo. It really emphasizes how Atlasian politics was completely transformed just one month later.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bumping this in case the Lincoln case generates discussion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Been a good while since we had a case this contentious.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was getting worried we were going to have a redux of the April-May 2013 situation with the Court.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

One must always balance the need for efficiency and speed with also ensuring that certain things are done in the proper way both in terms of procedure and in terms of constitutionality as such.

There are a lot of times where implied consent/second is taken for granted and it was only a matter of time before it caught up to someone.