SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Judiciary (Check and Balances Amendment)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Agenda: ?? ??

Maybe my amendment to establish judicial tenures?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I know I'm not a member of this distinguished committee, but nevertheless I'd like to address my colleague's statement, since it's a matter of grave importance.

This was a screw up, but things happens. Since we don't have activity requirements, it's pretty much punishing offense that is not existing. As far as I remember this was a sole such incident. Impeaching the entire court seems to be hugely disproportional response to one mistake.

Regarding political activity, I agree the Court members should refrain from this but is there any law requiring maintaining a total political neutrality? Again, offense that does not exist.

Ben, I'm glad you're cosponsoring my amendment to establish judicial tenure. We should start with fixing laws, instead of committing our efforts at what is undoubtedly going to be a very long and a very divisive fight.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Regarding the fact that my colleagues may have inserted themselves into policy discussions, the idea that this would be grounds for removal from office is, for me, a total nonstarter.

It's hard for me to believe that bgwah and opebo were the only SC Justices in the entire history of Atlasia to engage in policy discussions while in office.

So again, as there's no law prohibiting such activity, there's no offense committed. If there's a proposal to ban Justices from certain activity, I could support, but this is a hypotetical issue that cannot be applied in these hearings.

I believe the only plausible ground for impeachment is a recent delay. Not strong argument, since it's an isolated case.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Look, I believe the whole "can't serve consecutive term" is important because there would be a substantial risk of the Justice being influenced by whether he can keep his job.

I have no problem with 2 years term.

There's a problem with the Associate being elevated to Chief. How about a Justice may be elevated to the Chief and serve out the full term in this role has he served no more than half of the original tenure?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Can we agree to fix the numbering of the clauses, too?

No problem.

Look, I believe the whole "can't serve consecutive term" is important because there would be a substantial risk of the Justice being influenced by whether he can keep his job.

See, I think Justices who are interested in being reappointed are more likely to remain neutral than those who are considering jumping back into politics. I understand the opposite point of view, but I think there's enough of an expectation that a Justice will take his or her job seriously that the reappointment of a blatantly partisan Justice is more unlikely than not. I also believe that the Court can benefit from the experience that a Justice with longer tenure can provide.

I'm prepared to defer to the judgement of my colleagues on this one, though. I'd still vote for a bill that prohibited reappointment. It's the two year terms that I'm most attached to.

This is fair point and I'm willing to get along, but serving 4 years? Maybe we can keep the tenure one year with possible consecutive reappointment?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

As a sponsor I'm willing to compromise in order to get the main thing done. I oppose consecutive reappointment, but that's negotiable. What I oppose unconditionally in unlimited reappointment. It's basically screwing the whole idea.

As of term length, 2 years is fine, though with reapointment I have my doubts. 4 years of uninterrupted service is just too long in a bloody role playing game.

Well, I said my piece