SB 2017-121: Nonpartisan Judiciary Amendment (Rejected)

[ZuWo]

In short, I believe this amendment will help to preserve the reputation of the Supreme Court as well as ensure that decisions by the court always have the highest visible degree of impartiality as possible. I vividly remember when Oakvale was a Supreme Court Justice while simultaneously serving as chairman of the People's Party, which at the time drew a lot of criticism from the left.

I am aware of the main argument against the amendment in question; an Atlasian could be a Supreme Court Justice and call the shots in a political party even without formally serving in any partisan position. However, I think that the benefits of such an amendment outweigh this potential loophole.

[ZuWo]

As I posted in my opening statement I realize that the amendment in question has a loophole.

However, I disagree with those who say that the amendment seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. Indeed, the mere semblance of political bias, which undeniably exists when a party leader/Supreme Court justice deals with a court case involving a member of his party or a poster he clearly dislikes, is a problem. As I pointed out, Supreme Court justices were criticized in the past for precisely that reason, and there must be a way for us to address it.

[ZuWo]

I don't think this has enough support so we might as well have a final vote soon.

[ZuWo]

Aye