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

[Bacon King]

FWIW. I'm available to assist Bgwah as a special prosecutor or whatever, as needed.

With Lief and Marokai both being active I don't really have much to do

[Bacon King]

I have but three letters to say:

LOL

Seriously though, even if it is frivolous as all hell, Tweed's suit is simply a stroke of genius.

[Bacon King]

I happen to believe stirring up a little bit of controversy can be constructive - you can't have progress without a bit of chaos! Besides - every story needs a villian, no?

Besides if I was going to do something that could be fairly described as "legal terrorism", I promise you that at the very least my shenanigans would have also included the other two states you founding fathers forgot about...

[Bacon King]

I have created an opinion poll on this issue:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=250387.0

[Bacon King]

good to be back 

[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

[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)

[Bacon King]

Bacon King brought the questioning upon himself.

Your dedication to the integrity of our judiciary is sincerely appreciated

Stay vigilant!

[Bacon King]

ayy lmao

I have never passed the 22,000 character limit per post before and I definitely never expected to do so for an Atlasian court judgement about parliamentary procedure lmao

i guess it makes sense though, it's always been something of an interest of mine. Yankee can definitely vouch for my OSPR obsession back in my good old days in the Senate

[Bacon King]

Parts of the decision made are absolutely ridiculous and the case honestly should not have been taken. The court, here, has made the mockery of the legislature's rulemaking power and taken the first step to absolute control over the legislature by the judiciary.

Part VI of the decision blatantly attempts to take away the legislature's ability to alter, amend, or nullify their own rules by simple majority vote, a blatant overreach which essentially strips the legislature of any power or meaning; the region might as well be a judicial dictatorship after that point.

I urge the Council to repeal Section 7.C of its rules immediately. Not doing so would be an admission that there is no longer even a facsimile of democracy in the region and would invite a constitutional crisis of the highest order.

Usually when I write an opinion I try to avoid any public discussion of it because ideally my judgement should stand for itself. In this instance, however, I feel it necessary to make an exception because I'm genuinely confused and saddened by your reaction. I worked very hard on my judgement specifically to avoid the appearances of any sort of power grab. My only desire was to provide some helpful clarifications for the council with their procedural rules where it seemed to be genuinely necessary.

I'm not sure what you mean by Section VI of the ruling so I assume you're talking about VII. I believe you are mistaken because I did everything within my power to keep my judgement narrowly tailored to only cover the facts at hand. You might have an issue with the Errata concept itself, but I found that the most effective method to do that which I had been charged to do -- specifically, "issue a binding decision dictating the proper interpretation" of the rules under dispute. I opted against leaving it as a longwinded court opinion only because I thought an actual list would be more helpful to the members of the Council.

I assume one of your biggest concerns is that Section I cannot be amended by the Council? That is only the case to ensure the decision is binding, as mandated by 7.C. Section I on its own doesn't even do anything! It just establishes the mechanism to enact/enforce the subsequent section(s), which will be the actual judgements of specific rulings - one section per judgement. Please note that, if it so desires, the council can literally right now vote to abolish the entirety of Section II. The same will be true of any possible future rulings. Nothing that affects them can remain in place if it is not the desire of the council that it be so.

I honestly don't understand your opposition here. Did I not explain myself clearly in my judgement maybe? I admit that I was somewhat rushed towards the end because I didn't want to put off submitting the verdict for another two days but I thought I was still able to sufficiently explain the checks put in place to ensure I could never override the will of the legislature, nor could any future Justice in my position.

Section I is literally just a section that explains how stuff included the later sections will apply to the legislature, which the legislature can't touch if 7.C is in place because literally it's literally just the mechanism to apply 7.C judgements, plus a few basic procedural clauses. Section II is all the actual things restricting the council, and they are absolutely free to trash any or all of them whenever they want. And new additions to the Errata can only be made in the subsequent sections dedicated to the subsequent trials that might occur -- which the Council also retains the right to repeal at will, which is not something I can take away from them.

I genuinely don't understand your argument and I want to because I greatly value your judgement and wish to understand where you are coming from

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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