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

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I just want to state publicly that I never supported impeaching Windjammer, and when the question was brought up, I immediately said no. Windjammer is a good Chief Justice who does his job. You can't just impeach justices you don't agree with, and the initial proceedings against LT were botched by the prosecution.

I will also say that I have submitted evidence of LT's behavior to a person working on this case. I will say nothing more on the matter.

[Spark]

I just want to state publicly that I never supported impeaching Windjammer, and when the question was brought up, I immediately said no. Windammer is a good Chief Justice who does his job. You can't just impeach justices you don't agree with, and the initial proceedings against LT were botched by the prosecution.

I will also say that I have submitted evidence of LT's behavior to a person working on this case. I will say nothing more on the matter.

Expected take from a typical partisan. What is going on is ludicrous and a perversion of this country's constitutional order. This is negligent to say the least.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I just want to state publicly that I never supported impeaching Windjammer, and when the question was brought up, I immediately said no. Windammer is a good Chief Justice who does his job. You can't just impeach justices you don't agree with, and the initial proceedings against LT were botched by the prosecution.

I will also say that I have submitted evidence of LT's behavior to a person working on this case. I will say nothing more on the matter.

Expected take from a typical partisan. What is going on is ludicrous and a perversion of this country's constitutional order. This is negligent to say the least.

You will never be president.

[Continential]

I just want to state publicly that I never supported impeaching Windjammer, and when the question was brought up, I immediately said no. Windammer is a good Chief Justice who does his job. You can't just impeach justices you don't agree with, and the initial proceedings against LT were botched by the prosecution.

I will also say that I have submitted evidence of LT's behavior to a person working on this case. I will say nothing more on the matter.

Expected take from a typical partisan. What is going on is ludicrous and a perversion of this country's constitutional order. This is negligent to say the least.

You are never going to be president.

It will be hilarious seeing Spark's reaction to his loss.

[Spark]

I just want to state publicly that I never supported impeaching Windjammer, and when the question was brought up, I immediately said no. Windammer is a good Chief Justice who does his job. You can't just impeach justices you don't agree with, and the initial proceedings against LT were botched by the prosecution.

I will also say that I have submitted evidence of LT's behavior to a person working on this case. I will say nothing more on the matter.

Expected take from a typical partisan. What is going on is ludicrous and a perversion of this country's constitutional order. This is negligent to say the least.

You will never be president.

The fact is this is not about me or you. It's about Atlasia.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I just want to state publicly that I never supported impeaching Windjammer, and when the question was brought up, I immediately said no. Windammer is a good Chief Justice who does his job. You can't just impeach justices you don't agree with, and the initial proceedings against LT were botched by the prosecution.

I will also say that I have submitted evidence of LT's behavior to a person working on this case. I will say nothing more on the matter.

Expected take from a typical partisan. What is going on is ludicrous and a perversion of this country's constitutional order. This is negligent to say the least.

You will never be president.

The fact is this is not about me or you. It's about Atlasia.

words words words words

[Bacon King]

I just want to state publicly that I never supported impeaching Windjammer, and when the question was brought up, I immediately said no. Windammer is a good Chief Justice who does his job. You can't just impeach justices you don't agree with, and the initial proceedings against LT were botched by the prosecution.

I will also say that I have submitted evidence of LT's behavior to a person working on this case. I will say nothing more on the matter.

Expected take from a typical partisan. What is going on is ludicrous and a perversion of this country's constitutional order. This is negligent to say the least.

You will never be president.

this started playing in my head as soon as i read your post and now it's stuck in there

[Joseph Cao]

(Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)

Whoops.

[Bacon King]

this will be my last response in this thread because anything I say here is just nonbinding dicta, so if you'd like to continue this conversation let us continue it in the court case discussion thread

preemptively offering Adams a response here because he I didn't see his quote before after I posted mine, and he had already posted it

I literally just addressed why I had to wait until now to re-file? Besides, that's a very quick turnaround in real time. I have read about cases re-filed years after a mistrial or dismissal without prejudice. Some of us who play the game have real lives and that should be respected.

trust me, my friend, I know more about real life getting in the way of Atlasia than probably anyone else here

I do not see real life as a reasonable comparison to Atlasia for this purpose: sure trials can last (and/or be refiled after) several years, but their politicians also go several years between elections!

Arguing here in detail and litigating out the nuances of what might theoretically constitute a speedy trial is honestly not a reasonable use of time for either of us so if you don't mind, I'll be a bit to-the-point with my responses here, please do not take it personally!

Basically: rationale for the delay (the time it took for your appointment, the reasons you chose to wait before refiling) are political reasons that simply do not justify the abrogation of anyone's constitutional rights.

please note also i don't blame you personally! when I've said "prosecution" I mean it in the most general possible sense: the "People of the Republic of Atlasia," from the names of all criminal trials - more specifically, the entire government to which it refers. there was not necessarily failure on the individual level at any point. Regardless, however, the prosecution (the government as a whole) did not adhere to the constitutionally protected rights of the accused

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I just want to state publicly that I never supported impeaching Windjammer, and when the question was brought up, I immediately said no. Windammer is a good Chief Justice who does his job. You can't just impeach justices you don't agree with, and the initial proceedings against LT were botched by the prosecution.

I will also say that I have submitted evidence of LT's behavior to a person working on this case. I will say nothing more on the matter.

Expected take from a typical partisan. What is going on is ludicrous and a perversion of this country's constitutional order. This is negligent to say the least.

You will never be president.

this started playing in my head as soon as i read your post and now it's stuck in there

Of course here in Fantasyland, Hamilton did eventually become president.

[Bacon King]

LT is a free man unless a change is made to the Court

With all due respect to Mr. Dragon: the removal of the Chief Justice would not alter the Court's consensus in this matter.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

LT is a free man unless a change is made to the Court

With all due respect to Mr. Dragon: the removal of the Chief Justice would not alter the Court's consensus in this matter.

To be clear I'm referring to the removal and replacement with someone who votes in favor of taking the case. Not asking you to reveal exact counts, but if you meant it would be 2-2 and still denied - I am more than capable of realizing that and so was assuming the full removal and replacement.

[Bacon King]

Not asking you to reveal exact counts

To be clear, my use of the word "consensus" was deliberate and should be understood literally: there was no justice in disagreement.

[ilikeverin]

Not asking you to reveal exact counts

To be clear, my use of the word "consensus" was deliberate and should be understood literally: there was no justice in disagreement.

I can validate this.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

All right. I still believe Windjammer must face some form of Sanction for issuing threats toward elected officials from the bench; I find it hard to believe he will be impartial going forward. But I do appreciate that at least some level of Fairness existed here.

[Former President tack50]

I am very inactive in Atlasia these days, but I will say 3 things on the windjammer thing:

1) I fully take responsability for messing up this case and publicly apologize to the victim involved. It is my fault that LT will walk away free

2) I disagree with the ruling of the court. There is certainly a place for the "speedy trial" clause; but in my view it basically refers to the statute of limitations for crimes. Now, these aren't set in current law, so Congress could certainly reform this if needed. Probably something we should add to the criminal code. 3 months I will say would be ironically a reasonable timeframe irl (escaling for Atlasia time vs RL time), but in game I think it is too short and should probably be closer to 6 months or a year even.

3) There is no reason to impeach any Justice, including Windjammer. I'll vote nay in impeachment if it comes to it

[Bacon King]

CC'ing this here for future reference

Atlasia is not the United States, but a distinct polity that maintains an independent (if simulated) existence. While Atlasia is inspired by the USA of the real world, it's not a 1:1 replacement. The presence of something irl does not necessarily imply its presence in Atlasia except as noted by the GM

The Atlasian Supreme Court is not the US Supreme Court, and we have no physical court building. We don't hear cases in the US Supreme Court building, we hear them in the Atlas Fantasy Government forum of talkelections.org

Likewise, US Supreme Court precedent is not binding upon this court - their opinions have never been the opinions of this court. Furthermore Atlasia operates within a distinct and unique constitutional framework that makes it impossible to meaningfully apply US legal precedents in any logically consistent way. This court is authoritatively beholden to no precedent but its own.

However on that note it is still perfectly reasonable, and encouraged, to cite irl case law in terms of how to apply our own constitutional principles, especially in circumstances where the language of the Atlasian constitution deliberately mirrors the that of the US constitution. So while we are not bound by irl US jurisprudence, they can indeed serve as the best guide for the court as we build Atlasia's own body of case law.

for reference, note the following excerpts from this court's opinion in Politics Fan v South:

   The Supreme Court of Atlasia finds it necessary to recognize the existence of Reality. Our nation must be understood within the confines of its existence as a government simulation; the Atlasian Constitution itself establishes this framework. For example, citizens are granted the right to vote not by reaching adulthood, but by registering an account on the internet discussion forum upon which “Atlasia” is hosted. Article VI of our Constitution even specifically defines the authority responsible for “simulating” the impact of citizens’ actions and controlling their interactions with various “non-playable entities”.

We can safely assume the right to privacy exists within our own jurisprudence by judging the original intent of the authors of Atlasia’s current Constitution. The framers were obviously familiar with United States Bill of Rights and the inferred right to privacy contained therein. They were not merely inspired by the Bill of Rights, they deliberately copied its Amendments verbatim for inclusion within Article I of our own Constitution. This direct transfer of such precise language indicates a clear desire to apply contemporary American Bill of Rights jurisprudence upon Atlasia as they would have understood it – which includes a right to privacy.

   Therefore, while the right to privacy can be discerned from various components of Article I, it can with certainty and simplicity be understood to exist as an unlisted natural right for the purposes of Article I, Section 13 (which states in full: “The enumeration of certain rights in this Constitution shall not be construed as to deny or disparage those natural rights and liberties herein unlisted”).
In addition to covering personal privacy, this right also has some extension that covers marriage, procreation, contraception, as well as family planning; this is evident in cases such as Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut, both of which were decided within the common law jurisdiction of the United States based upon Constitutional language in their Bill of Rights that is verbatim identical to our own Article I. Again, the intention of our Constitution’s authors is clear: inclusion of identical language means our own judiciary can look to its real-world United States counterpart for guidance. This does not mean real-world precedent applies to our nation in any meaningful way, of course, but it is a natural element of common law judicial systems that we can look to other common law systems for guidance whenever no controlling precedent exists.

Thanks for taking the time to read my tangent everyone. It's not necessarily the MOST important stuff - when someone (for example) makes an argument that treats US case law as binding, or otherwise doesn't understand the distinction between America and Atlasia, I don't hold it against them. I'll always do my best to infer what they mean within Atlasia's constitutional framework -- and where possible I endeavor to bridge that understanding gap with my questions during oral arguments, to help ppl reframe their case.

Hopefully my explanation makes sense and it can help everyone crafting arguments in future cases. If nothing else, I suppose this post will be a useful resource, and in the future I will link ppl back to this post so they will understand me when I'm asking what their argument means within a strictly Atlasian constitutional context

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Ilikeverin? You alive?

No, am I dead. However, I have now seen this thread and will try to respond shortly.

*hughughug*,

ilikeverin

When did we become a necrocracy?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Ilikeverin? You alive?

No, am I dead. However, I have now seen this thread and will try to respond shortly.

*hughughug*,

ilikeverin

When did we become a necrocracy?

Uh oh. We just banned necromancy in the South.

[ilikeverin]

Ilikeverin? You alive?

No, am I dead. However, I have now seen this thread and will try to respond shortly.

*hughughug*,

ilikeverin

When did we become a necrocracy?

Uh oh. We just banned necromancy in the South.

Zoinks!

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Ilikeverin? You alive?

No, am I dead. However, I have now seen this thread and will try to respond shortly.

*hughughug*,

ilikeverin

When did we become a necrocracy?

Uh oh. We just banned necromancy in the South.

Zoinks!

Looks like that trip to the Keys we were planning will need to be cancelled.

[ilikeverin]

Ilikeverin? You alive?

No, am I dead. However, I have now seen this thread and will try to respond shortly.

*hughughug*,

ilikeverin

When did we become a necrocracy?

Uh oh. We just banned necromancy in the South.

Zoinks!

Looks like that trip to the Keys we were planning will need to be cancelled.

But, dear, it was to be our honeymoon!

[West_Midlander]

The region is not expressing an ideological stance, it is coercing localities to express an ideological stance.

The existence of God is a matter of fact, not a stance, opinion, or belief.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I would understand by what Authority, (I mean lawfull) I am brought hither. There are many unlawfull Authorities in the world, as Thieves and Plunderers in the high-wayes. I would know by what Authority I was taken from thence, and carried from place to place, I know not where? When I have understood the lawfulness of the Authority, I will make my Answer: In the mean time, re∣member that I represent your Government, your lawfull Government; and weigh well with your selves, what sins you heap on your own heads, and the anger and judgments of God which you will bring upon this land, I say seriously, weigh it before you further do proceed from one sin to a greater. Therefore declare unto me, by what lawfull Authority I sit here, and I will not refuse to Answer you. In the mean time I will not betray my trust. I have a trust committed to me by God, by an ancient and lawfull succession, I will not betray that by answering to a new and an unlawfull Authority; wherefore satisfie me in this, and you shall hear further from me.

If you had but pleased to observe what the Court did suggest unto you, when you first came hither, you had under∣stood by what Authority you were brought hither; which Au∣thority doth require of you, in the Name of the People of Atlasia, by whom you are elected Attorney General, that you make answer to them.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I would understand by what Authority, (I mean lawfull) I am brought hither. There are many unlawfull Authorities in the world, as Thieves and Plunderers in the high-wayes. I would know by what Authority I was taken from thence, and carried from place to place, I know not where? When I have understood the lawfulness of the Authority, I will make my Answer: In the mean time, re∣member that I represent your Government, your lawfull Government; and weigh well with your selves, what sins you heap on your own heads, and the anger and judgments of God which you will bring upon this land, I say seriously, weigh it before you further do proceed from one sin to a greater. Therefore declare unto me, by what lawfull Authority I sit here, and I will not refuse to Answer you. In the mean time I will not betray my trust. I have a trust committed to me by God, by an ancient and lawfull succession, I will not betray that by answering to a new and an unlawfull Authority; wherefore satisfie me in this, and you shall hear further from me.

If you had but pleased to observe what the Court did suggest unto you, when you first came hither, you had under∣stood by what Authority you were brought hither; which Au∣thority doth require of you, in the Name of the People of Atlasia, by whom you are elected Attorney General, that you make answer to them.

Atlasia was never an Elective Commonwealthe, but collectivist, for almost, these two decades. Therefore declare unto me, by what Authority I am brought hither. I labour more for the liberty of my people then any of you, who pretend to be my Judges; and therefore I say, declare unto me, by what lawfull Authority I am placed here, and I will answer you; otherwise, I shall make no answer at all.