The Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) PASSED

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

When did Ebowed become a Justice?

Eh, all those G-WA avatars look the same to me.

I prefer the other plan myself, as it gives regions more control over their judicial officers. The current 3 have already been approved as Federal Supreme Court Justices, so it won't be a problem to mandate they carry on at those roles, while none of them have been approved as justices for their region. They're not merely Supreme Court Justices, remember, they hold both jobs.

I get where you're coming from, but I think its important that both the Regions and the next president have some say in shaping the court. This Convention has understandably taken great care to preserve the rights of the Regions, but we shouldn't forget that the national people have rights as well. I would be very concerned were the Convention to remove the next presidents right to fill one of the new seats, especially considering the tendency of the national popular vote to differ from the outcome of individual Regional elections.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I prefer the other plan myself, as it gives regions more control over their judicial officers. The current 3 have already been approved as Federal Supreme Court Justices, so it won't be a problem to mandate they carry on at those roles, while none of them have been approved as justices for their region. They're not merely Supreme Court Justices, remember, they hold both jobs.

I get where you're coming from, but I think its important that both the Regions and the next president have some say in shaping the court. This Convention has understandably taken great care to preserve the rights of the Regions, but we shouldn't forget that the national people have rights as well. I would be very concerned were the Convention to remove the next presidents right to fill one of the new seats, especially considering the tendency of the national popular vote to differ from the outcome of individual Regional elections.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from as well. To me it's less of a matter of shaping the court, but one of choosing the individual positions themselves. When it comes to the Regional Associate Justices, they should require both the approval of the federal government and the regional one, since they'll need to do both jobs. I don't like the idea of appointing someone with only half of that vetting process done, when these Justices are fully vetted for the Federal-only seats on the bench. It seems we'll have to do it at least once, I'd simply like to do that as little as possible.

There are going to be trade-offs no matter how we cut this. Personally, I feel like balancing influence between the Regions and the central government is the most important consideration. I might feel differently if we had three newbies on the Court, but both Bgwah and TJ have long records in Atlasian politics spanning Regional and federal office - I don't for a moment doubt their competence or their ability to handle these added responsibilities. (Keep in mind, also, that the Regions rarely make use of their CJOs - I don't think there's been a single Regional court case in all my time in Atlasia). I'm fairly confident that, were we to put Bgwah or TJ's nomination to a vote, they would be overwhelmingly approved - for my own part, I can't think of a single logical reason that they would be unable to do this job, unless they themselves simply aren't interested. I'm an ends-focussed thinker by nature, so I therefore found this proposal preferable to one where the new president has no say in shaping the new Court (a tangible concern with tangible results in terms of policy and game mechanics).

I'll put up a principle vote in the next few minutes.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

PRINCIPLE VOTE on RETENTION

Carefully read each of the following three Plans; then rank the Plans in order of preference on the ballot provided below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Question: In what capacity, if at all, should the incumbent Supreme Court Justices be retained?

[   ] Plan "A"
[   ] Plan "B"
[   ] None of the Above
[   ] Abstain

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

[1] Plan A
[2] Plan B

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

None of the above. Names of specific citizens shouldn't be in the constitution. If I'm thinking in error I will consider changing my vote.

See my proposed amendment: the text would refer to the "most senior justice," "second most senior justice," etc., not the names of the people themselves.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Since the vote is tied currently, I will extend the voting period for another 24 hours, to end tomorrow evening at 9:26 PM (EST).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

RESULTS - Principle Vote on Retention

First Count
Plan "A" (6)
Plan "B" (5)
NOTA     (4)

NOTA eliminated

Second Count
Plan "A" (6)
Plan "B" (5)
Exhausted (4)


With a majority of voting delegates in favor, Plan "A" has been selected. As such, Truman's amendment has been adopted.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I ask the delegates find a way to confirm the current Associate Justices as regional ones.

This would invalidate the results of the last principle vote to retain those Justices, would it not?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

What if the federal government had a say on who sits on regional courts?

Well, actually, it does now. That was the point of the "Associate Justices" adopted a few votes ago.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Here is what we have so far for this Article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are there any further amendments/suggestions for principle votes?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

There's a lot of pessimism floating around, and while I understand why some are frustrated with how the last few votes have panned out, two things need to be made clear:
     • This Convention will not fail, if for no other reason than that I will not allow it to fail. Whatever imperfections have been adopted, the document we have drafted thus far is fundamentally stronger and more durable than the present government. Disagreements - even strong disagreements - are not a reason to throw up our hands and cry "uncle." We have made a painful decision, and now we will move on.
     • I don't believe that the reforms to the Judiciary are doomed to go wrong, but even if this were so, it would be a great leap to suggest that they will drag the new Constitution down with it. The Three-fifths Compromise did not destroy the U.S. Constitution, and neither will excessive Regionalism scuttle this effort to rebuild the game. If Duke and others are right, and this turns out to be a colossal mistake, we will be able to correct it through a Constitutional Amendment later.

I suggest we move ahead with the matter of the Chief Justiceship: while the U.S. Constitution did not specify how the Chief Justice is to be selected, some delegates have proposed including such a clause in Section 1. As I see it, there are two reasonable ways to go about this: a) allow the President to designate one of the jurists "Chief Justice"; or b) allow the Court to elect the Chief Justice from among its members. I prefer option (a) because it gives the president an extra dash of influence over the court, and a strong presidency is essential to ensuring that the Regions don't become too powerful (this would also be a good concession to the folks who opposed the Bore Plan).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Are we still pretending to care about Turkisblau's trolling? I hadn't noticed.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite plainly, this amendment allows the president to appoint the Chief Justice from among the existing justices. I limited his choices to the two federal Justices (as the Associate Justices already have two jobs), but I'd be willing to change that if the Convention would prefer.

Delegates have 24 hours to object.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Would the chief justice just have the same role as IRL? They'd basically just decide what cases to take

This would be determined by Congress.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seeing no objection, Truman's amendment has been adopted.

I motion for a final vote on this Article. Delegates have 24 hours to object.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seeing no objection, we will now proceed with a final vote. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain. Voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.

For reference, here is a copy of the full text of this Article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

By a vote of 12 Ayes and 3 Nay, this Article has been ADOPTED.

As such, I hereby declare debate to be closed in this thread.