SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary

[Oakvale]

Okay guys, I've been elected Chair of this thing, so let's get this show on the road. Check in and we can get down to business.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When I get done laughing at this obvious joke, there had better be activity in here.


I want my legal represenation bill reviewed and reviewed in depth and detail. Bring in "legal experts" if such is required to get the job done.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Present.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Ahoy

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My legal representation is only three down in the queue, could you please get on it soon.

[Napoleon]

Do you need something to do over here?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It isn't the matter at hand that is the problem, but the instrument by which it is to be acheived. THe Chairman is on leave.

Now this is something we should find a way to fix on Productive committee things.

Of course it would have to be a valid LOA, WHICH OAKVALES IS NOT!!!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is anyone on this committee even left alive? The first person to post gets the extra-procedural and informal control over this train wreck.


Perhaps I should just cease control myself and start dictating discussions, myself.

We kind of a have an issue of responsiveness regarding the Court, which is an activity issue to say the least. May I recommend bringing the Justices in and investigating how to improve that situation.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I guess I'll seize control

How do we think we can best get a responsive Supreme Court when issues arise?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When I get the opportunity, I plan to offer an amendment to the Expectations Amendment that would trigger an automatic impeachment proceeding for any member that fails to participate in three cases in a row.

[opebo]

When I get the opportunity, I plan to offer an amendment to the Expectations Amendment that would trigger an automatic impeachment proceeding for any member that fails to participate in three cases in a row.

What do you mean 'participate in'?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When I get the opportunity, I plan to offer an amendment to the Expectations Amendment that would trigger an automatic impeachment proceeding for any member that fails to participate in three cases in a row.

What do you mean 'participate in'?

Join, Concur, Dissent, or Recuse. One of the four. I have the texts posted in the Expectations Amendment.

[opebo]

When I get the opportunity, I plan to offer an amendment to the Expectations Amendment that would trigger an automatic impeachment proceeding for any member that fails to participate in three cases in a row.

What do you mean 'participate in'?

Join, Concur, Dissent, or Recuse. One of the four. I have the texts posted in the Expectations Amendment.

Where's that?

By the way, your expectation is entirely unreasonable, as we do our deliberations in private (by pm) and deliver you the result.  You may assume that at least 2 or 3 of us concur. 

It is quite clear that the motivation here is political and not at all about performance of duty.

[MaxQue]

When I get the opportunity, I plan to offer an amendment to the Expectations Amendment that would trigger an automatic impeachment proceeding for any member that fails to participate in three cases in a row.

What do you mean 'participate in'?

Join, Concur, Dissent, or Recuse. One of the four. I have the texts posted in the Expectations Amendment.

Where's that?

By the way, your expectation is entirely unreasonable, as we do our deliberations in private (by pm) and deliver you the result.  You may assume that at least 2 or 3 of us concur. 

It is quite clear that the motivation here is political and not at all about performance of duty.

In a normal court, we know which judges are concurring or dissenting and we fully expect this Court to do so too.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Apparently, at least one of your of your present or former colleagues doesn't share your opinion, as that standard of "participation" was recommended to me by a Justice. There is no assumption involved as the ruling says who joined in the opinion. If a Justice hasn't joined, I don't think it unreasonable that they then be obliged to compose their own opinion or have recused themselves as a result of some conflict. I find that the most reasonable of standards. 

I have no interest in going after any of you because of your politics. That position is undeniable within reason, Opebo. I would point out that my proposal is the least aggressive and the most concerned with avoiding undue partisan influence, of any proposal that has been motivated recently by the court's lack of activity. It is similar to the standard utilized with regards to the Senate's procedures for the use of its constitutional expulsion mechanism that serves to ensure that such is only used for cases of competence and not with those of politics.

[opebo]

In a normal court, we know which judges are concurring or dissenting and we fully expect this Court to do so too.

Well, there's is no stipulation in law or in the constitution to that effect, Max.  Therefore this cannot be a 'crime' and thus is not a reason for impeachment.  If you wish to set requirements from this point forward, that might under some interpretations be considered constitutional.

[opebo]

The sweet Justice from transsexual Thailand should remember that impeachment is Constitutional by definition. There is no judicial review of the process; it is totally up to the Senate and the people to interpret what constitutes an "impeachable offense."

The fact that the term 'impeachment' and the term 'offense' is used, Averolls, means that it is defined only as a crime - not merely as the whim of the mob.