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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Not seeing much activity re Politics Fan v The South.  Wondering how close we might be to a ruling. 

They said they would issue both rulings at the same time.

[Former President tack50]

So, how long until we can start launching impeachment proceedings against all 5 justices? 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, how long until we can start launching impeachment proceedings against all 5 justices? 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=173021.0

Three weeks from final arguments was what it took in 2013.

Oh lord, here we go again! BUCKLE UP ATLASIA!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

People need to act like they actually care about this game.  

So applicable to game at large today.

Reading that thread is amazing.

Zuwo endorsing term limits, Adam defending Opebo. It really emphasizes how Atlasian politics was completely transformed just one month later.

[windjammer]

I mean, we are actually debating these cases.

[FairBol]

No decision yet, apparently?

[Former President tack50]

Looking at tmthforu v. Fremont, an interesting question for the court to answer I suppose will be "Do the preambles of bills count as legally binding legislation?"

That also reminds me Atlasia rarely if ever writes preambles for bills, though from what little I have seen US bills rarely have preambles in the first place anyways so it is fitting.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

My own opinion is that preambles are binding, because they are part of legislation and should be interpreted as such, especially in a simulator where our bills typically don't have all the legalese of real bills and so using them to understand legislative intent is more important.  If preambles don't have meaning, then it's pointless to use them to annex territories and states, and in this particular case the preamble is being used as the region's way of acknowledging its claim of those particular states and territories. 

[OBD]

In retrospect, an explicitly nonbinding resolution may have been a more appropriate path to tackle this issue. However, I agree with Truman that the Kansas provision in the Fremont constitution is nonbinding and has no legal effects, and thus shouldn't be struck down by this Court - that's a job for Parliament to do, if appropriate (and it very well might be given the universal unpopularity of this action).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seems like the Frist Minister of Fremont believes constitutions aren't worth diddly squat.

LOL. It seems the former Speaker of the Southern Chamber of Delegates is ignorant of the basic tenets of constitutional law.

"The preamble is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers or individual rights." (Source)

"Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom." (Source)

There's a reason that when we actually annexed the Pacific islands last year, we did it with a bill and not an amendment to the preamble.

[Former President tack50]

Commenting on the Politics Fan v. The South case now that it is over, beyond the questions about abortion I have 2 extra things to say.

1: Point 1 of the ruling is absolutely massive, essencially ruling standing as meaningless in Atlasia. This is really the decision that will have the most impact. It is a shame Reactionary is not around to see this, I imagine he would be angry at the justices for this

2: I am surprised at how many "open questions" this ruling still leaves. The biggest of them is "Does the power to regulate abortion fall to the federal or the regional governments?". While the answer is fairly predictable given the long history of sentences on that area, it is still technically an open question.

I also do wonder whether the ruling means pre-reset precedent applies or not, though I imagine the ruling Bacon King commented for pre-Atlasia precedent (ie before 2004) would also apply to pre-reset precedent (2004-2015); where it is not automatic precedent but still extremely strong arguments, especially when the constitutional points in question are identical or functionally identical.

[Blair]

It always was stupid to have standing in my view & was extremely easy to get around; I believe in the past BaconKing (or perhaps someone else) simply said they were an Attorney for a women denied an abortion- as this is a simulation who other than the GM could stop that?

[Former President tack50]

It always was stupid to have standing in my view & was extremely easy to get around; I believe in the past BaconKing (or perhaps someone else) simply said they were an Attorney for a women denied an abortion- as this is a simulation who other than the GM could stop that?

Well, you could have the opposite judgement, and claim that GM approval is a requirement for such a lawsuit to happen. And to be honest, I would agree, especially now that standing has been overturned, suing on behalf of an NPC should require GM approval first.

Standing in Atlasia has been invoked very inconsistently, though looking back at pre-reset tells me that the ruling here is just reaffirming the status quo and previous rulings.

From what I can tell the only time Atlasia had standing as a formal requirement was for a short while between 2009 and 2010, following from the ruling Purple State v. Lief. Apparently in such ruling (2-1) the majority made up an elaborate doctrine regarding standing.

However the court decided to overturn the standing requirement just a year later in Atlasia v. Libertas.

Of course, given that a decade has passed these cases are essencially meaningless now, as only Yankee and 2/5 justices were there to watch it live; plus the obvious caveats I mentioned earlier regarding pre-reset precedent not being automatically applicable and what not.

Reading the opinion in Atlasia v. Libertas (not sure if the justices actually read that one in fact ) the ruling from Marokai at the time is very similar to the one from now. Basically arguing that since Atlasia is a government simulation, standing does not make much sense.

Though for what's worth Marokai's opinion was a lot shorter

There is also an opebo dissent on Purple State v. Lief, though he basically just claims he disagrees and claims imposing an standing standard is judicial activism (which to be fair, it was)

[Bacon King]

From what I can tell the only time Atlasia had standing as a formal requirement was for a short while between 2009 and 2010, following from the ruling Purple State v. Lief. Apparently in such ruling (2-1) the majority made up an elaborate doctrine regarding standing.

However the court decided to overturn the standing requirement just a year later in Atlasia v. Libertas.

Of course, given that a decade has passed these cases are essencially meaningless now, as only Yankee and 2/5 justices were there to watch it live; plus the obvious caveats I mentioned earlier regarding pre-reset precedent not being automatically applicable and what not.

Reading the opinion in Atlasia v. Libertas (not sure if the justices actually read that one in fact ) the ruling from Marokai at the time is very similar to the one from now. Basically arguing that since Atlasia is a government simulation, standing does not make much sense.

Though for what's worth Marokai's opinion was a lot shorter

There is also an opebo dissent on Purple State v. Lief, though he basically just claims he disagrees and claims imposing an standing standard is judicial activism (which to be fair, it was)

The majority opinion was written with both PurpleState v Lief and Atlasia v Libertas in mind, actually (I spent so long researching/writing the opinion and you think I didn't read every prior Atlasian case that was even remotely relevant? ), and in fact the length of Part I was intentionally in reaction to Marokai's Re: Standing Requirements decision in the latter case.

Although I disagreed with the majority opinion in PS v Lief, it offered a thorough and comprehensive rationale for its opinion, based on the text of the contemporary Atlasian constitution. This logic was never actually addressed by Re: Standing Requirement, where the author instead chose to dismiss standing requirements as an "unnecessary waste of time" that "didn't make sense".

The Court found it necessary here to establish a comprehensive precedent for standing requirements under the current Constitution that was based on our own logic. Resting our decision (and modern precedent) entirely on the logic of a single-paragraph dismissal of a thousand-word argument was deemed... inadequate.

fwiw it's worth mentioning that Part I of the majority opinion was the only section where all five justices were in agreement

[Blair]

Has the opinion on the Lincoln case been written? I know there will be less fireworks with it though!

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Preambles have had an effect over law in other jurisdictions. The preamble to Australia's constitution is an act of the British Parliament creating the Commonwealth. It literally established the creation of national self government. How is this relevant to Atlasia? It's just a relevant as Truman's citation of the legal impact of the preamble to the USA's constitution. US Law isn't Atlasian law anymore than Australian law is Atlasian law.

If preambles are so meaningless why did you vote in favor of a meaningless change?

An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia
[9th July 1900]

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

2. Act to extend to the Queen's successors
The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

3. Proclamation of Commonwealth
It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

4. Commencement of Act
The Commonwealth shall be established, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth shall take effect, on and after the day so appointed. But the Parliaments of the several colonies may at any time after the passing of this Act make any such laws, to come into operation on the day so appointed, as they might have made if the Constitution had taken effect at the passing of this Act.

5. Operation of the Constitution and laws
This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen's ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.

6. Definitions
The Commonwealth shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.

The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called a State.

Original States shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment.

7. Repeal of Federal Council Act
The Federal Council of Australasia Act, 1885, is hereby repealed, but so as not to affect any laws passed by the Federal Council of Australasia and in force at the establishment of the Commonwealth.

Any such law may be repealed as to any State by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, or as to any colony not being a State by the Parliament thereof.

8. Application of Colonial Boundaries Act
After the passing of this Act the Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895, shall not apply to any colony which becomes a State of the Commonwealth; but the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing colony for the purposes of that Act.

9. Constitution
The Constitution of the Commonwealth shall be as follows:

Source: Australian Parliament House website

[Former President tack50]

Preambles have had an effect over law in other jurisdictions. The preamble to Australia's constitution is an act of the British Parliament creating the Commonwealth. It literally established the creation of national self government. How is this relevant to Atlasia? It's just a relevant as Truman's citation of the legal impact of the preamble to the USA's constitution. US Law isn't Atlasian law anymore than Australian law is Atlasian law.

I mean, if we are going to go through that route I could cite a very high profile RL Spanish court case that says the exact opposite, that preambles are not legislation and do not have any legal effects

(the court did rule that they were judicially reviewable anyways though, as they tend to influence how to interpret legislation. I could go more into this if prompetd to do so but I won't for now)

[Bacon King]

Not commenting on anything involving a future case but muaddib in that specific instance it was an Act of Parliament BEFORE it was a Preamble, so I'm not sure if the comparison is necessarily accurate (although admittedly I do not at all understand how the role of British Parliament in pre-independence Australia relates to Australia's post-independence legislature, so I may have no idea what I'm talking about)

[S019]

So, bumping this in light of FairBol's case, which I have to say is probably one of the most frivolous cases to come to the court. ASV, Wulfric, Peebs, and Encke, a total of four independent sources, all of vastly different partisan affiliations, all came to the same conclusion, I think FairBol's count is wrong and he made a mistake somewhere.

[cinyc]

So, bumping this in light of FairBol's case, which I have to say is probably one of the most frivolous cases to come to the court. ASV, Wulfric, Peebs, and Encke, a total of four independent sources, all of vastly different partisan affiliations, all came to the same conclusion, I think FairBol's count is wrong and he made a mistake somewhere.

That doesn't matter. It's an elections case, and it must be heard. If Fairbol has an argument, he should be free to raise it before the court.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

So, bumping this in light of FairBol's case, which I have to say is probably one of the most frivolous cases to come to the court. ASV, Wulfric, Peebs, and Encke, a total of four independent sources, all of vastly different partisan affiliations, all came to the same conclusion, I think FairBol's count is wrong and he made a mistake somewhere.

That doesn't matter. It's an elections case, and it must be heard. If Fairbol has an argument, he should be free to raise it before the court.

And the court likewise has every right to dismiss the case, especially if Fairbol fails to provide any evidence.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

So, bumping this in light of FairBol's case, which I have to say is probably one of the most frivolous cases to come to the court. ASV, Wulfric, Peebs, and Encke, a total of four independent sources, all of vastly different partisan affiliations, all came to the same conclusion, I think FairBol's count is wrong and he made a mistake somewhere.

That doesn't matter. It's an elections case, and it must be heard. If Fairbol has an argument, he should be free to raise it before the court.

Setting the precedent that any sore loser can just deny how counting works and bring a frivolous lawsuit before the Supreme Court. Oh and also they can sue anyone they want. Cool.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

So, bumping this in light of FairBol's case, which I have to say is probably one of the most frivolous cases to come to the court. ASV, Wulfric, Peebs, and Encke, a total of four independent sources, all of vastly different partisan affiliations, all came to the same conclusion, I think FairBol's count is wrong and he made a mistake somewhere.

That doesn't matter. It's an elections case, and it must be heard. If Fairbol has an argument, he should be free to raise it before the court.

Setting the precedent that any sore loser can just deny how counting works and bring a frivolous lawsuit before the Supreme Court. Oh and also they can sue anyone they want. Cool.

Here's How FairBol Can Still Win

[Blair]

Yeah in every other election case the plantiff had to demonstrate how the ballots were incorrectly counted or disgarded- you can't just stand up and say 'the count is wrong' and then expect the Justices to work on it.

I also believe that certain established procedures regarding elections were, in this case, not followed.  As such, I hereby request the granting of a Writ of Certiorari, specifically concerning if the above election was properly certified, and if further review of the tally or a runoff election is warranted.

This is jibberish. What procedures? Why is a run-off relevant?

[Sestak]

So, bumping this in light of FairBol's case, which I have to say is probably one of the most frivolous cases to come to the court. ASV, Wulfric, Peebs, and Encke, a total of four independent sources, all of vastly different partisan affiliations, all came to the same conclusion, I think FairBol's count is wrong and he made a mistake somewhere.

That doesn't matter. It's an elections case, and it must be heard. If Fairbol has an argument, he should be free to raise it before the court.

He is perfectly free to raise an argument, yes, but he hasn't done that. All he's done is say "I have an argument" and then go quiet as to what it is - which definitely shouldn't be enough for certiorari.