Reintroducing the 21st Amendment (Final vote)

[Oakvale]

I'd like to humbly suggest that the Senate consider removing the following part of this amendment -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is a tedious bureaucratic requirement that's just a pain in the ass for the Justices who haven't posted the ruling, and doesn't even mean much. Opebo would regularly post a two word  "I concur". That's the problem with measuring activity or quality in such a mechanical way.

If a Justice isn't doing their job, the Senate retains the power of impeachment. Otherwise I'd request that you free us from this requirement.

[Oakvale]

The problem is that it's an irrelevant requirement. Forcing people to post "I concur" doesn't tell you anything about their level of participation or "activity".

The value that I've always seen in that clause is that it establishes a clear, written minimum expectation for the Justices and makes it a bit more difficult for Senators to waffle on clearly justified votes in favor of impeachment for fear of upsetting someone. Of course, this was entirely ineffective during Torie's first impeachment hearing...

Yes, but there could clearly be a case where a very active and engaged judge overlooks posting "I concur!" twice and are thus automatically forced to go through a tedious impeachment process that just wastes everyone's time.

[Oakvale]

Thank you for trying to repeal that wrongheaded amendment, Windjammer.