SB 2017-121: Nonpartisan Judiciary Amendment (Rejected)

[windjammer]

Alright,

Believe me or not but I totally agree with the spirit of this legislation. I indeed believe that Supreme Court Justices should avoid being involved in party stuff.

I suppose you will ask me why if I'm opposed to that I chose to become Chair of the Labor Party? The reason is simple, I believed that had the Labor Party collapse, the game would have collapsed too as it would have been replaced by a party cult like TPP and we would have gotten cringeworthy elections like Bore vs Matt where a literal trotskyst almost defeated the most respected labor senator at this time because he "wasn't labor" even if he literally supported the legalization of incest, and was expelled by the assembly because of gross inactivity. Anyway, the debate isn"t about how some rightwing voters can have no shame at all. But the risk of a two parties system with one being totally party cult if the Labor Party or the Federalist Party collapses, is indeed *real*. The temporary alliance of the major leftwing party and of the major rightwing party was needed last time to defeat a such party cult.

So this is why I temporary became Labor chairman to fix Labor and to prevent it from falling, and so in fine to prevent the game from falling after the creation of a massive party cult party. I do agree with the "spirit" of this legislation. Yes, Supreme Court justices shouldn't be involved in any parties under normal circunmstance. This is why I resifned as chair as soon as I could.

However, seriously, do you really believe that this legislation would stop Justices to do some party stuff? Hahahahaha, of course not. You don't need to be elected Chair if you want to be active in a party. So I don't understand the goal of this amendment, as it would basically change *nothing* in term of limiting the potential role of SC justices into a party.

And finally, there is an another problem with the current supreme court and all the former ones, it's that the Supreme Court Justices are not particularly active as they have for the most them decided to retire, and that is their right. And I believe that potential SC's inactivity is a far bigger problem than *forbidding* supreme court justices of being elected at some party positions (which by the way wouldn't fulfil the intentional goal of passing a such measure), this legislation would remind the Justices even more than inactivity is fine.