I am running for President. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 05:55:44 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  I am running for President. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: I am running for President.  (Read 2224 times)
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,732
Japan


« on: February 13, 2005, 01:33:04 AM »

I'm just loopy from being up so late.
I don't plan on running for anything in the near future.

LOL, you just got where you are, yeah, I don't imagine you'd be in a rush to leave.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,732
Japan


« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2005, 01:58:34 AM »

I really hope you reconsider. This could swing the election to Al or Lewis.

Not unless you refuse to use preferential voting.

If you do, go ahead, but don't blame anyone else if you lose.

If anything, preferential voting is the reason for this problem.

I prefer approval voting.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,732
Japan


« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2005, 12:16:45 PM »

This is not just a bill.  This is a severe injustice that has been done.  Most people on this forum can recongnize this.

Based on the comments made in the discussion of the ruling

People who agree with our ruling:
Myself
KEmperor
Bono
Peter Bell
NewFoundPolitics

People who outright disagree:
You
Al
TexasGurl

People who mostly disagree, but think the problem is with the Constitution and not the ruling, mainly vagueness of the Constitution.
Beet
Gabu
Jake
John Ford


Seems to me, based on the opinions expressed on the ruling, that most forum members do not take this as an injustice. What I think this is really about is that the bill in question was your 'baby' so to speak - you put a lot of time and work into it, and when it got shot down you got very upset. Perfectly understandable, and I don't begrudge you for it, but I feel you are acting irrationally. Personally I'm suprised you've been acting the way you have. If you wish to fight our decision, that's fine and understandable, just try to be calm and rational about it.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,732
Japan


« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2005, 12:29:56 PM »

People who agree with our ruling:
...
Peter Bell

I remark only to point out that I disagree with your construction of the Equal Protection Clause, though obviously you've already acknowledged you were probably wrong in that regard.

Correct, meant to specify that(and that Jake agreed with us on the section 2 region thing as well) but I forgot.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,732
Japan


« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2005, 03:09:42 PM »

If the bill had failed in Congress or vetoed by the President, I would have been resigned to the fact that I lost.  I didn't lose.  I won.  And it was hard.  After the game was over, three people went into a room, two came out and made a decision about the rules that is in line with their ideological beliefs.  Of course I feel that there might be an alterior motive.  Of course I am disappointed.  You fought me very hard on this before you were a justice and you used a technicallity to kill a bill that you never liked.  Why not just admit that?  Believe it or not, I would rather know that than have you lie to me.

Why will I not admit that my decision was politically motivated? Because that would be a lie. I am a strict constructionist - this was a known factor when I was confirmed for my position, and it is the only ideological motivation I have in my job as well as the only possible valid one I could have, I do not let the issue of the day get personal. You did not even bother to show up for my confirmation hearing, you did not debate against my appointment in the least, even knowing where I stood and what would probably happen to your bill should I be appointed - so why did you not do so?

Also of note, I've stated that Section 6 of your bill(in a thread which was conveniently deleted), which I opposed along with the rest of it, was not ruled unconstitutional - it's clearly constitutional under Clause 15 of the Powers Amendment, and I've made no secret of it. You could easily stuff that into it's own bill, probably needing a few tweaks for information purposes, and get it passed - I would oppose it in the debate, of course, and even if passed and then opposed in the court by a plaintiff, I would rule it constitutional because it would be so. If you really want to know, it was originally my intention to strike down only the unconstitutional sections of bills, but a previous court precedent(Texasgurl vs. Fritz) made ruling one section of a bill unconstitutional strike down the entire bill - if you don't believe me ask Texasgurl, I did ask about this subject in our first meeting.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 10 queries.