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

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm fairly certain that the new president would have to actually act unconstitutionally for a case like this to be entertained.  The mere election of one whom you don't trust will act within the bounds of the Constitution is not, in itself, illegal.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm fairly certain that the new president would have to actually act unconstitutionally for a case like this to be entertained.  The mere election of one whom you don't trust will act within the bounds of the Constitution is not, in itself, illegal.

That's part of the argument in my amicus brief. I'm waiting to post it until the Whig Party finishes voting on whether or not to endorse. Simfan seemingly doesn't have quite the sense of urgency or drama that I do (not necessarily a bad thing, don't get me wrong) and he called for a twenty-four-hour vote throughout this calendar day.

The Liberal Party is voting on whether to endorse too, so I'll let you know when our position is decided tomorrow.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Anyone want to summarize Tweed's "case" for me? I have no desire to trudge through his nonsense, particularly as I'm sure that he's getting off on the idea of dozens of people reading it.

Basically, Tweed is upset that he lost the election, and so he is filing a legal claim on the basis that Atlasia elected a president who will not protect the general welfare of the people, and so therefore the court must appoint the candidate who supposedly does; that being, Tweed himself.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You lie. I skimmed his posts, and he appears to be asserting his divinity.

That, too.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Xahar's cast plenty of peculiar ballots in the past and I'm fairly certain they were counted.  There's no reason that shouldn't be the case here, as far as I'm concerned.

Xahar - Invalid (VP choice not clearly interpretable)

This is, uh, self-evidently moronic.

google translates it as "arcanpoilyan", not "kingpoleon"

It's a good thing Google Translate is always right.

No but is this seriously just a question of how to transliterate a person's username

[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. 

[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

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Not sure where to post this really, but there is a precedent case that is interesting with regards to both the tmth case and the Fairbol case. It is also a hilarious case and came close to being the single worst court decision in Atlasian history but still.

The case in question would be Young Tweed v. DoFE (2012)

With regards to the Fairbol case

This is fairly easy to explain. In this case, Tweed wanted to overturn the results of the June 2012 presidential election, not because of any election errors, but because Napoleon winning put in danger the "Promote the General Welfare and Equality of the forum members" part of the constitution; which was blatantly false.

Still, considering the court did take this case, I guess you could make an argument for the Fairbol one; though his case is even weaker than the one Tweed presented lol. In any case, in my opinion it is clear the court did things wrong in the Tweed case so if the court is going to take it as precedent, it should be only to overturn it.

With regards to the tmth case

Here the correlation would actually be a positive one for tmth.

When making his case, Tweed used the preamble of the Atlasian Constitution at the time to make his case that Napoleon should not be legally allowed to become president.

For better or worse, the court did not really look into this in its opinion, but given how it did give certiorari; we can assume the court did see something that was at least justicable in the preamble.

There might be other, better cases dealing with preambles, but I am not aware of them.

Oh yes, I remember that election and the ensuing case!  (AFAIK Tweed was also the only presidential candidate to upload "campaign speeches" of him on his webcam up on YouTube, which for the most part said speeches were profanity-laden rants but it was still pretty interesting.)

Do pre-reset court cases carry precedent, though?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Very bizarre strategy. The defense seems to believe it can win this case by delaying everything to the last possible second. I don't believe this strategy has ever been used successfully before, either in-game or IRL.

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Joke court.

Also, Elon Musk is not a "fictional character" LOL. But since the Court has chosen to essentially ignore a GM story, Cao is within his right to rescind the bans at will and in accordance with existing law.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

So putting the mudslinging aside now, I want to get the official position of the Chief Justice and/or other members of the Court so that this problem won't come up again: should the GM Team assume de facto jurisdiction over NPC cases? We need to address the existence of lower NPC courts (like the Delaware Court of Chancery) for future lawsuits that can be appealed directly to the Engine if they are inappropriate for the regional or Supreme courts. This needs to be in the form of a constitutional amendment or statute, and it's something that we'll need to know for future GM nominees if that's the route we're going.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm so distraught that my Serious Proposal to let the regions nuke each other or other countries wasn't received well.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

"If they're indicting Trump in real life, we should indict these guys too!"