Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)

[windjammer]

I'm doing all I can to find a replacement for Dereich, which will hopefully alleviate some of the problem.

Btw, I know you mean well etc but you have no authority to do so.

[Leinad]

Just to be clear about something,
The Supreme Court does all it can to be as quick as possible. It's just extremely when basically 1 SC deregistered, an another one is missing, and an another one recused himself. We are 2 and we're not intentionnally waiting because "it's funny to have no president xD". It's just extremely difficult to end up having a ruling when we are only 2 and that there is no  tie breaker.

Thank you for the statement and your efforts to get a result--I was getting a tad concerned that you guys just said "screw it, Truman can be President until March," but now I see that's not the case.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

"screw it, Truman can be President until March,"

At this point I wish he could be.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm doing all I can to find a replacement for Dereich, which will hopefully alleviate some of the problem.

Btw, I know you mean well etc but you have no authority to do so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Interim President, I temporarily exercise all powers vested in the President of the Republic of Atlasia by the Constitution and the laws passed under its authority. As such, it is my prerogative to nominate Dereich's successor on the court, pending the affirmative vote of the Senate.

[Dereich]

Right, I've given up on writing anything as deep as I wanted and literally just am throwing stuff unedited from IRC and PMs while ignoring some things but here are my thoughts on BaconKing v. SoFE and what I'd consider if I was still a Justice.

I really don't like BK's "none of the other SoFEs have done it!" argument. The person's judgment on how to enforce the law (along with their activity level) is THE THING that differentiates candidates for the position; different people SHOULD handle it differently as long as there isn't a SCOA bright line on the matter.

BK's "freedom of speech" argument should fail as well. Regulation of both speech and voting are permitted and expected by the constitution; just as yelling fire in a crowd is ban-able, so too should attempts to use peer pressure in the voting booth. This pits two rights against each other, speech and the right to vote as you please without intimidation. The Court here should defer to the Legislature's power to create appropriate regulations regarding these boundaries. As the regulation serves a substantial government interest and is narrowly tailored to not suppress speech rights any more than necessary to protect other rights there's no problem on that front.The Court earlier collectively decided that the statue thing was unimportant; that can be ignored. The Due Process claim doesn't work for me either; the SoFE explained his justification for the ban and the aggrieved voters are currently having their day in Court.

For me, the sole issue that has merit in BK's case is that of the right to vote and of the definition of campaigning. As I said above, the right to ban campaigning should be constitutional and a lack of prior enforcement shouldn't necessarily preclude its use here.

When looking at just that issue my question is "Was the SoFE justified in calling the activity of the voters campaigning?" Rpryor actually got the question exactly right: "could those votes reasonably be construed as a direct attempt to influence how future voters cast their ballot."

In some circumstances, I'd think that was a jury question but since this has already gone on for a million years I'll just go ahead and assume the Court won't do that. I'll admit; I'm really really torn on this case. "F**k Kingpoleon," is not, to me, prima facie enough to ban a vote. But I also think Rpryor as SoFE should be the one determining these things, not the Court. If I was still on the Court, I guess my final vote would be the allow the votes in, only because I think voting is the crux of this game and this ONE TIME while anti-campaigning laws were not well understood the voter's rights could outweigh the SoFE's power but I can't say I'm sure enough that any decision the Court makes will be wrong.

[Kingpoleon]

Once Gass has been confirmed, I hope this will come to an end quickly.

[Dereich]

Once Gass has been confirmed, I hope this will come to an end quickly.

It would be highly improper for a justice to vote on a case when they missed oral arguments.

[Anna Komnene]

Just to be clear about something,
The Supreme Court does all it can to be as quick as possible. It's just extremely when basically 1 SC deregistered, an another one is missing, and an another one recused himself. We are 2 and we're not intentionnally waiting because "it's funny to have no president xD". It's just extremely difficult to end up having a ruling when we are only 2 and that there is no  tie breaker.

Does that mean one of the justices isn't doing their job?  Do they know about the case?  Should we be talking about this as possible grounds for impeachment?  That's kinda vague.

[Dereich]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=152;sa=showPosts

[Virginiá]

For me, the sole issue that has merit in BK's case is that of the right to vote and of the definition of campaigning. As I said above, the right to ban campaigning should be constitutional and a lack of prior enforcement shouldn't necessarily preclude its use here.

When looking at just that issue my question is "Was the SoFE justified in calling the activity of the voters campaigning?" Rpryor actually got the question exactly right: "could those votes reasonably be construed as a direct attempt to influence how future voters cast their ballot."

I'm assuming you mean his constitutional argument had merit but you disagreed nonetheless, if so:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How is anti-campaigning ban constitutional? I agree in principle that campaigning shouldn't be allowed there, but just because you or I think it ought to be that way doesn't mean it's constitutional.

That amendment's exception(s) seem worded entirely to prevent new accounts from voting while leaving open the option to introduce new activity requirements, such as a user doing a couple things just to show they are invested in Atlasia, or whatever. The amendment as a whole absolutely does not suggest that you can just call anything activity and then regulate it. That's practically a backdoor, Dereich. You can then use that part at the end about 'activity' to describe just about anything a person does in Atlasia. What if someone decides a new 'activity' requirement is that all voters in the South must post a picture of their DL (or write out their info), otherwise they can't vote. Or if a new activity regulation saying if people posted good things about Labor, they can't vote. If you're interpreting that last line to allow a banning on what BRTD/Hash did, then I don't see how you can reasonably say what I just suggested would not be allowed. Your interpretation is casting a wide net, and since it's so ambiguous here, it would allow those things under your interpretation, as they are not fundamentally different at all.


I think the amendment really needs to be re-worded. Right now, depending on what the interpretation of the Supreme Court is, it can be used to effectively invalidate the entire spirit of the amendment, save for the new account hours. Regardless of the SC interpretation, a new court can reverse that and thus this amendment needs a fix posthaste.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you agree there shouldn't be campaigning in the election thread, you should agree with the invalidation of the ballot. Open and shut.

In reality, you *don't* agree with the campaigning ban.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Non sequitor.

Pretty much every jurisdiction has a ban on campaigning in the ballot box. Arguing a hypothetical does nothing to address the point. As you said, you agree with the ban on campaigning. The ban is in place for a good reason. That thread needs to be kept clean so as to make counting easier.

Pretty much every jurisdiction has laws regulating the format that ballots must follow, and there's a whole series of regulations - including invalidation for altering your ballot, etc.

Are you suggesting those regulations are also unconstitutional? Or do you not care about those because they won't help labor this election?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Right, I've given up on writing anything as deep as I wanted and literally just am throwing stuff unedited from IRC and PMs while ignoring some things but here are my thoughts on BaconKing v. SoFE and what I'd consider if I was still a Justice.

I really don't like BK's "none of the other SoFEs have done it!" argument. The person's judgment on how to enforce the law (along with their activity level) is THE THING that differentiates candidates for the position; different people SHOULD handle it differently as long as there isn't a SCOA bright line on the matter.

BK's "freedom of speech" argument should fail as well. Regulation of both speech and voting are permitted and expected by the constitution; just as yelling fire in a crowd is ban-able, so too should attempts to use peer pressure in the voting booth. This pits two rights against each other, speech and the right to vote as you please without intimidation. The Court here should defer to the Legislature's power to create appropriate regulations regarding these boundaries. As the regulation serves a substantial government interest and is narrowly tailored to not suppress speech rights any more than necessary to protect other rights there's no problem on that front.The Court earlier collectively decided that the statue thing was unimportant; that can be ignored. The Due Process claim doesn't work for me either; the SoFE explained his justification for the ban and the aggrieved voters are currently having their day in Court.

For me, the sole issue that has merit in BK's case is that of the right to vote and of the definition of campaigning. As I said above, the right to ban campaigning should be constitutional and a lack of prior enforcement shouldn't necessarily preclude its use here.

When looking at just that issue my question is "Was the SoFE justified in calling the activity of the voters campaigning?" Rpryor actually got the question exactly right: "could those votes reasonably be construed as a direct attempt to influence how future voters cast their ballot."

In some circumstances, I'd think that was a jury question but since this has already gone on for a million years I'll just go ahead and assume the Court won't do that. I'll admit; I'm really really torn on this case. "F**k Kingpoleon," is not, to me, prima facie enough to ban a vote. But I also think Rpryor as SoFE should be the one determining these things, not the Court. If I was still on the Court, I guess my final vote would be the allow the votes in, only because I think voting is the crux of this game and this ONE TIME while anti-campaigning laws were not well understood the voter's rights could outweigh the SoFE's power but I can't say I'm sure enough that any decision the Court makes will be wrong.

I more or less agree with this in its entirety. It's a d*mn shame the rest of the game is too busy screaming at each other to think through this rationally.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must say, I am disappointed that NE case went directly to the Supreme Court, though I do understand the reasoning for it.

This was one concern I had when we merged the judicial branches of the regional and federal level. Yes, it reduced the total number of offices by 1, but my hope was that the regional Justices would act first in their capacity over matters, even when the federal constitution is involved. And then appeal occur if necessary.

I understand skipping it for simplicity, but this is a game and there are few cases anymore.

[windjammer]

I must say, I am disappointed that NE case went directly to the Supreme Court, though I do understand the reasoning for it.

This was one concern I had when we merged the judicial branches of the regional and federal level. Yes, it reduced the total number of offices by 1, but my hope was that the regional Justices would act first in their capacity over matters, even when the federal constitution is involved. And then appeal occur if necessary.

I understand skipping it for simplicity, but this is a game and there are few cases anymore.

I understand your reasoning Yankee but this is just slowling the process as it is likely it would end up to the whole SC in the end.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must say, I am disappointed that NE case went directly to the Supreme Court, though I do understand the reasoning for it.

This was one concern I had when we merged the judicial branches of the regional and federal level. Yes, it reduced the total number of offices by 1, but my hope was that the regional Justices would act first in their capacity over matters, even when the federal constitution is involved. And then appeal occur if necessary.

I understand skipping it for simplicity, but this is a game and there are few cases anymore.

I understand your reasoning Yankee but this is just slowling the process as it is likely it would end up to the whole SC in the end.

And what is the problem with that? I mean I get what the problem is from the perspective of efficiency, but doesn't it set a precedent that really weakens the role of the Regional Justices?

[windjammer]

I must say, I am disappointed that NE case went directly to the Supreme Court, though I do understand the reasoning for it.

This was one concern I had when we merged the judicial branches of the regional and federal level. Yes, it reduced the total number of offices by 1, but my hope was that the regional Justices would act first in their capacity over matters, even when the federal constitution is involved. And then appeal occur if necessary.

I understand skipping it for simplicity, but this is a game and there are few cases anymore.

I understand your reasoning Yankee but this is just slowling the process as it is likely it would end up to the whole SC in the end.

And what is the problem with that? I mean I get what the problem is from the perspective of efficiency, but doesn't it set a precedent that really weakens the role of the Regional Justices?

The problem with that? Slowling the process. Just imagine if this could change the result of an election.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must say, I am disappointed that NE case went directly to the Supreme Court, though I do understand the reasoning for it.

This was one concern I had when we merged the judicial branches of the regional and federal level. Yes, it reduced the total number of offices by 1, but my hope was that the regional Justices would act first in their capacity over matters, even when the federal constitution is involved. And then appeal occur if necessary.

I understand skipping it for simplicity, but this is a game and there are few cases anymore.

I understand your reasoning Yankee but this is just slowling the process as it is likely it would end up to the whole SC in the end.

And what is the problem with that? I mean I get what the problem is from the perspective of efficiency, but doesn't it set a precedent that really weakens the role of the Regional Justices?

The problem with that? Slowling the process. Just imagine if this could change the result of an election.

Is there an election currently at stake?

There is a such a thing as an expedited process for emergencies, yes. But in the absence of that, the normal process should be proceeded with.

[windjammer]

I must say, I am disappointed that NE case went directly to the Supreme Court, though I do understand the reasoning for it.

This was one concern I had when we merged the judicial branches of the regional and federal level. Yes, it reduced the total number of offices by 1, but my hope was that the regional Justices would act first in their capacity over matters, even when the federal constitution is involved. And then appeal occur if necessary.

I understand skipping it for simplicity, but this is a game and there are few cases anymore.

I understand your reasoning Yankee but this is just slowling the process as it is likely it would end up to the whole SC in the end.

And what is the problem with that? I mean I get what the problem is from the perspective of efficiency, but doesn't it set a precedent that really weakens the role of the Regional Justices?

The problem with that? Slowling the process. Just imagine if this could change the result of an election.

Is there an election currently at stake?

There is a such a thing as an expedited process for emergencies, yes. But in the absence of that, the normal process should be proceeded with.

I don't think so but still, I don't see the point of intentionnally makign the process longer.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must say, I am disappointed that NE case went directly to the Supreme Court, though I do understand the reasoning for it.

This was one concern I had when we merged the judicial branches of the regional and federal level. Yes, it reduced the total number of offices by 1, but my hope was that the regional Justices would act first in their capacity over matters, even when the federal constitution is involved. And then appeal occur if necessary.

I understand skipping it for simplicity, but this is a game and there are few cases anymore.

I understand your reasoning Yankee but this is just slowling the process as it is likely it would end up to the whole SC in the end.

And what is the problem with that? I mean I get what the problem is from the perspective of efficiency, but doesn't it set a precedent that really weakens the role of the Regional Justices?

The problem with that? Slowling the process. Just imagine if this could change the result of an election.

Is there an election currently at stake?

There is a such a thing as an expedited process for emergencies, yes. But in the absence of that, the normal process should be proceeded with.

I don't think so but still, I don't see the point of intentionnally makign the process longer.

Then why have them?

[cinyc]

Technically, the Atlasian Supreme Court hasn't yet agreed to hear my case.  They can still decline, as they have in many instances before.   That's one reason why I initially filed in the North Circuit Court - I thought I'd have a higher chance of the case actually being heard.  I also thought the Supreme Court would want me to start there, as the case is about a provision of the North/Lincoln Constitution, and that court would have jurisdiction.

But I acknowledge that that the Atlasian Supreme Court has the authority to hear this case in the first instance, if they deem it fit.

[Blair]

FWIW the entire system is rather confusing, something I found out was...  if a non-Southern citizen is suing the South then it goes to the Supreme Court, but if it's a Southern Citizen it goes to the regional Judge

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

FWIW the entire system is rather confusing, something I found out was...  if a non-Southern citizen is suing the South then it goes to the Supreme Court, but if it's a Southern Citizen it goes to the regional Judge

It wasn't my preferred setup.

I only had one concern regarding the court and to this day I am still shocked it didn't happen, but grateful none the less.

While we on the subject, here is a rather ironic exchange on complexity:

The biggest problem with it would be complexity.

Is complexity inherently bad? This forum has a lot of smart people, ostensibly. There's no reason why they couldn't wrap their heads around a little more bureaucracy. People aren't on a politics forum if they can't handle complexity, in other words.

Well, here's another angle. If I can mock up a well-worded proposal, will some Senators be willing to consider that over what has been presented here? I'm frankly not a fan of terms, at all, and I'd like to see a little more discussion of any alternatives (including mine ).

Ironic, because allegedly, complexity was my beck and call according to a certain group of people. The same group largely, that put Tyrion in office.

[TJ in Oregon]

The prospect of potentially presiding over a case as a Regional Circuit Judge, and then presiding over the appeal of the same case as a Supreme Court Justice is an odd one.

[Drew]

The prospect of potentially presiding over a case as a Regional Circuit Judge, and then presiding over the appeal of the same case as a Supreme Court Justice is an odd one.

Wouldn't this be analogous to a real-life Appeals Court panel hearing a case, and then a full bench of Judges hearing the case en banc on appeal?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Bump.

If those in the gallery would be so kind as to post their comments here, rather than in the case threads, it would be much appreciated.