The Crusader (Public Service Announcement)

[Mr. Reactionary]

For the record.

I don't really care about what the GM writes. I don't believe the Supreme Court can simulate fake trial for the following reason: Elon Musk doesn't exist in this game and for this reason it is impossible to represent fairly something that doesn't exist.

We have repeatedly recongized the existence of NPCs in this game, along with state and local governments, and for a year or so even simulated their elections. I think the correct view would be that if the GM Team says Elon Musk exists, then he does (and isn't our standard around real world events (i.e. twitter existing) that we assume they still happen if the GM doesn't say otherwise and our mechanics don't prevent it?). Obviously, Musk cannot represent himself within the context of this game, but certainly someone could be appointed to represent him.

I really have a lot of respect for NewYorkExpress activity. I have had the opportunity to interact with him on various things and I have always found him pleasant. My ruling isn't against his work.

However, it's one thing to take into account we are all having some personas. After all I would never be Chief Justice IRL as I don't have a law degree or whatever lol.

But in the end, I really believe that court cases have to respect the right of due process. The accused has the right to be represented by someone he wants. And this isn't possible to simulate that as Elon Musk isn't a poster.

I'm someone who is really laxist on "standing" etc but this is going too far for me. I can't host a mock trial with the accused person not even existing.

Theres literally no point in passing laws then if NPCs arent people. It nullifies pretty much every federal and regional law. You will take dumb cases where S019 says "I dont like the Souths abortion law therefore I can sue" and blow up 10 years worth of atlasian precedent to score a hack win in a hypothetical advisory opinion with no actual case, but an actual case arising from a federal law as applied to a person by a GM story, meh never ever judiciable ever. The law is therefore dead. Its ridiculous and ignores the clear mandatory language in the Constitution. Something tells me if we had charged an NPC with having an illegal abortion the Court would swoop in and demand we stop.

No worries. Judicial reform will resolve this.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I genuinely don't know you and I don't think WE really interacted

You're always sneaky, never be honest about your intentions and always trying to reach your goals by diverting attention.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I dont need a long bill to hide the fact that I think someone remaining in the same position in this game for seven uninterrupted years is terrible sportsmanship and bad for the game. 2 year term limits with retention elections and mandatory juridiction are all great ideas to ensure we never have players break the court by camping for so long ever again.  The judicial reform proposals promote fun, fairness, and good order.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I dont need a long bill to hide the fact that I think someone remaining in the same position in this game for seven uninterrupted years is terrible sportsmanship and bad for the game. 2 year term limits with retention elections and mandatory juridiction are all great ideas to ensure we never have players break the court by camping for so long ever again.  The judicial reform proposals promote fun, fairness, and good order.

No you want me to remove it from office instantly. There are a ton of term limits things you could have written but you clearly specified I would be out the moment it would pass.

Honestly it's just a concidence of you being the most senior member of the Court. I know I've said you should be impeached in the past on an unrelated manner, but I've come to realize that at the end of the day you're only 1 vote and the bigger issue is the court is simply not accountable to the populace, unless you're lucky enough to be in the right legislature at the right time. The amendment solves that.

Frankly,
I would support the legislation if it removes the "being removed from office instantly". I don't know you can write that for the most senior justice it expires in 6 months or whatever I would support be ok with that

Id be willing to compromise to delay implementation say 60 days, but not 6 months. Why 6 months? You had over 6 years. Every 60 days seems reasonable.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I dont need a long bill to hide the fact that I think someone remaining in the same position in this game for seven uninterrupted years is terrible sportsmanship and bad for the game. 2 year term limits with retention elections and mandatory juridiction are all great ideas to ensure we never have players break the court by camping for so long ever again.  The judicial reform proposals promote fun, fairness, and good order.

No you want me to remove it from office instantly. There are a ton of term limits things you could have written but you clearly specified I would be out the moment it would pass.

Honestly it's just a concidence of you being the most senior member of the Court. I know I've said you should be impeached in the past on an unrelated manner, but I've come to realize that at the end of the day you're only 1 vote and the bigger issue is the court is simply not accountable to the populace, unless you're lucky enough to be in the right legislature at the right time. The amendment solves that.

Frankly,
I would support the legislation if it removes the "being removed from office instantly". I don't know you can write that for the most senior justice it expires in 6 months or whatever I would support be ok with that

Id be willing to compromise to delay implementation say 60 days, but not 6 months. Why 6 months? You had over 6 years. Every 60 days seems reasonable.

Honestly?
This was just to be held during the mid year and beginning of next year. I prefer as well to be done after the end of the next presidential term. So the president elected in June would pick my replacement.

Lol. So in other words, you want to stall until after a likely Federalist Presidency. I dont think partisanship is a good reason to delay 6 months, especially since Obama was president when you went on the Court. Seriously dude, do you really not see how to anyone who isnt you the amount of time youve camped out in the court is outrageous? And now after 7 years you want to delay another 6 months purely in the hopes that a Labor President can replace you? Id be willing to compromise to 60 days which even that im not thrilled with, but 6 months for partisan reasons is unreasonable.

The only way id agree to delay it 6 months is if you resign this weekend. If you do, I pledge to fight to delay it 6 months. But otherwise I dont see yours as a reasonable request. Its not like you have a docket or pending cases. Delaying implementation smacks of vanity and partinsanship.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Retention elections and term limits designed to stop the creation of a perpetual class of oligarchs divorced from the people is anti-democracy?

Labor is the anti-democracy party because it wants to keep its Class of 2016 monopoly in power for literally life in a game where we are debating if Cao getting to serve for a full year is too long.

Judicial reform includes retention elections, reasonable term limits, and guarantees that some unelected royal class cant arbitrarily decide when and when not to do its only job. Turnover and voter participation make for a healthy game.