Peter et al. v. Supreme Court of the Republic

[Peter]

I ask permission to sue the Honourable Supreme Court for its dereliction of the Constitution and the Law by ordering that bgwah remain in office as President. He has already served his maximum two terms, and your perpetuation of his rule threatens to undermine the Rule of Law in this nation.

I ask that you repeal your order, recognise Keystone Phil as President, and send yourselves to bed without dinner.

[Fritz]

Jedi, please stop with the post deleting.  Some very valid points are being made, and your interference will not make the problem go away.

[Peter]

Given that the Dishonourable MasterJedi has deleted my original post, I shall repost:


The time for inauguration has just passed - President bgwah and VP Humpty-Dumpty have left office. The Court has barred a certification of the election and any previously declared winner from swearing-in.

The present Line of Succession Act is invalid, as its immediate antecedent for misplacing the PPT into the line of succession. Therefore the only constitutional Line of Succession Act is this one.

This leaves the PPT, then SoFA, then AG in the line of succession.

The PPT seems not to want it, the SoFA shouldn't do it because of his involvement in the case before the Court, leaving the Great Keystone Phil to become Acting President.

I implore Keystone Phil to take on this great burden that has been thrust upon him by the Constitution. Please Phil, save us.

[Sam Spade]

Please stop deleting, Masterjedi, I agree.

This is a temporary ruling, Peter, to stop too much silliness from going on and to ensure the government keeps running.

When I can get word from other court members, we'll issue something a little more permanent.

[afleitch]

Please stop deleting, Masterjedi, I agree.

This is a temporary ruling, Peter, to stop too much silliness from going on and to ensure the government keeps running.

When I can get word from other court members, we'll issue something a little more permanent.

I think the Court's handing of the crisis leaves alot to be desired to be honest. Instead of being a case against the counting of one vote it has been opened up to several votes, requests for PM's (which may be against forum rules - need to ask Dave on that one), a court order on who should serve as President and now the threat of a further case.

What could have been a simple yes or no has became a protracted affair.

[Fritz]

Peter- whether or not the PPT appears to want the job, it appears he would be next in line, and he has not said no.  Whether or not the SoFA should or shouldn't take the job, he would be next in line after the PPT, he has not been barred by the court from taking his place in the line of succcession, and he has not said no, either.  You're jumping the gun by turning to the AG.

And, I believe in order to become President, one would have to resign any office currently being held, before swearing in as President.

[Peter]

Peter- whether or not the PPT appears to want the job, it appears he would be next in line, and he has not said no.  Whether or not the SoFA should or shouldn't take the job, he would be next in line after the PPT, he has not been barred by the court from taking his place in the line of succcession, and he has not said no, either.  You're jumping the gun by turning to the AG.

Indeed you are correct on these points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And because of this point, I would doubt that SithLord will accept. As to whether Earl will accept, I confess my reasoning is more flimsy, but I think he enjoys the technocracy of the Forum Affairs brief and to be honest, his testimony is needed in the Court, rather than his skills being needed to ensure a smooth transition.

I would encourage both to step aside as I know that Keystone Phil has the necessary qualities to lead us through tumultuous times.

[Sam Spade]

Please stop deleting, Masterjedi, I agree.

This is a temporary ruling, Peter, to stop too much silliness from going on and to ensure the government keeps running.

When I can get word from other court members, we'll issue something a little more permanent.

I think the Court's handing of the crisis leaves alot to be desired to be honest. Instead of being a case against the counting of one vote it has been opened up to several votes, requests for PM's (which may be against forum rules - need to ask Dave on that one), a court order on who should serve as President and now the threat of a further case.

What could have been a simple yes or no has became a protracted affair.

If you wish to make an argument why we should not be addressing certain votes in our decision, you are entirely free to make such an argument as to why as an addendum to your amicus brief.

[afleitch]

Please stop deleting, Masterjedi, I agree.

This is a temporary ruling, Peter, to stop too much silliness from going on and to ensure the government keeps running.

When I can get word from other court members, we'll issue something a little more permanent.

I think the Court's handing of the crisis leaves alot to be desired to be honest. Instead of being a case against the counting of one vote it has been opened up to several votes, requests for PM's (which may be against forum rules - need to ask Dave on that one), a court order on who should serve as President and now the threat of a further case.

What could have been a simple yes or no has became a protracted affair.

If you wish to make an argument why we should not be addressing certain votes in our decision, you are entirely free to make such an argument as to why as an addendum to your amicus brief.

I certainly will, though I was awaiting an explanation as to why the court made it's decision to include them.

[Sam Spade]

Please stop deleting, Masterjedi, I agree.

This is a temporary ruling, Peter, to stop too much silliness from going on and to ensure the government keeps running.

When I can get word from other court members, we'll issue something a little more permanent.

I think the Court's handing of the crisis leaves alot to be desired to be honest. Instead of being a case against the counting of one vote it has been opened up to several votes, requests for PM's (which may be against forum rules - need to ask Dave on that one), a court order on who should serve as President and now the threat of a further case.

What could have been a simple yes or no has became a protracted affair.

If you wish to make an argument why we should not be addressing certain votes in our decision, you are entirely free to make such an argument as to why as an addendum to your amicus brief.

I certainly will, though I was awaiting an explanation as to why the court made it's decision to include them.

We were interested in receiving evidence about such votes because we believed they were relevant to the case and the arguments before us.  We are not necessarily including them as votes challenged through part of the case.

I can understand the confusion though.

Part of the problem here is that right now both bullmoose88 and I have a ton of stuff going on IRL.  It's been that way for at least the past month and will be so for a while.  If that is impacting our decision-making or making us slow to act, it's the reason.

[Brandon H]

From the "Who is President" thread.

If the PPT were to become President and would have to vacate his Senate seat, then he should be able to serve the entire 4 month term. If an elected President emerges after the lawsuit is settled and takes office, then the PPT should be the acting President and be able to retake his seat afterwards.

As a matter of fact, if any person is required to give up his seat to serve as the president then he should be able to hold it for a full term.

Acting President = hold on to current seat, return when President is appointed
President = give up current seat, serve full 4 month term.

However, since we seem to be acting under the belief that the PPT would vacate his Senate seat and then vacate the Presidency once the lawsuit is finished, then a few extra days for bgwah probably makes the most sense.

[Purple State]

I would imagine SoFA EarlAW would have to indicate that he does not wish to be President for you to make such an assertion Peter. Until such a time, I would agree that the SoFA, not the AG, may legally serve as acting President.

[minionofmidas]

I believe the correct procedure is impeachment.

[bullmoose88]

Impeach us if you wish, but the court is trying to find a resolution here.  As Spade said, he and I are quite busy for the next month IRL (professional licensing is no fun).