SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Judiciary (Check and Balances Amendment)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ah, Mr. Chairman? Somebody?

I am kind of having to do something that has never been done before and at a loss as to how to proceed?

Do we let Ebowed handle the AJ's first and then I do Ebowed, or vice versus? Which is more practical and just as important, which is most appropriate. I would think the members of the Judiciary committee would be a good position to answer the question.

[MaxQue]

I think doing Ebowed before the AJs is more appropriate, since it will give more legitimity to Ebowed.

On the other hand, nobody voted to impeach Ebowed, unlike the AJs, so doing the AJs first can be seen as more urgent.

Believe me, I'm as much at lost as you.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, I think I am going to offer an Amendment to resolve the text issue. Either we remove the committees from the process or give it a purpose for being there, the purpose that was the motivating factor for their inclusion in the first place.

So at least something can come of this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Good thing I did that now. It isn't the President Pro-Tempore, but the President of the Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. Chairman,


How soon could the committee get around to reviewing the Amendment I just introduced dealing with committees in the Impeachment process?

[MaxQue]

Oh, I could begin right now, but my fellow committee members are perhaps not so ready. Ben is quite away since a moment, you know and I think Nix is on a LoA.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Ben is quite away since a moment

[MaxQue]

Ben is quite away since a moment

Well, I didn't saw you in the last week, except when you came voting here.
So, Yankee wants us to review his changes to the impeachment procedure and Kal wants us to review his juridicial tenure proposal.

Which one do we being with? Or someone else has an idea?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'm a co-sponsor of Kal's amendment, so I'd like to see it considered first.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

My interpretation of the text indicates that this must go to the senate floor regardless of what this committee thinks. Since we are impeaching all three justices, I think it is best if I preside over the Chief Justice's hearing rather than the CJ presiding over the other justices while he's facing a trial himself.

On a side note, it's so stupid these committees have no teeth. You'd think if it failed the committee, it wouldn't make it to the senate floor. Why is our constitution this way? At any rate, I will do as best I can to get this going.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If Kalwejt's Tenure Amendment was already on the list to be considered, then it should go first of course. I was merely asking for a time estimate, not requesting that it be moved up the list or anything.

My interpretation of the text indicates that this must go to the senate floor regardless of what this committee thinks. Since we are impeaching all three justices, I think it is best if I preside over the Chief Justice's hearing rather than the CJ presiding over the other justices while he's facing a trial himself.

On a side note, it's so stupid these committees have no teeth. You'd think if it failed the committee, it wouldn't make it to the senate floor. Why is our constitution this way? At any rate, I will do as best I can to get this going.

Hopefully we will be fixing that soon. It was put in so that thE committee could weed out the garbage, but somehow it apparently didn't get worded right and thus we have this mess.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Gosh, this was the one chance we could've made committees useful and we still failed!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Don't you have some work to be doing Duke.

[MaxQue]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is the text.

The current proposal creates a one-year tenure, renewable, but not consecutive.

Also, there is two clauses 3 and why tenures would only being once there is a vacancy. Either it begin once it's passed for all judges, either it doesn't apply to old judges. Current writing implies wierd things.

[bgwah]

Kal introduced his proposal first, so I'd prefer to begin with his tenure amendment.

Hopefully we can get some of the Justices to testify here on the merits of the proposal, along with Kal. I'm a supporter of the amendment myself, with the caveat that terms should be long enough to protect judicial independence (say, two years). I'd also prefer to allow Justices to serve consecutive terms if they are reappointed.

I don't know, Nix --- having opinions created a movement to have me impeached...

[MaxQue]

Kal introduced his proposal first, so I'd prefer to begin with his tenure amendment.

Hopefully we can get some of the Justices to testify here on the merits of the proposal, along with Kal. I'm a supporter of the amendment myself, with the caveat that terms should be long enough to protect judicial independence (say, two years). I'd also prefer to allow Justices to serve consecutive terms if they are reappointed.

I don't know, Nix --- having opinions created a movement to have me impeached...

Let's not distort facts, please. The impeachment movement was created because of the delays. Ben came up with the partisanship accusations.

I don't have issues with a judge having opinions, as long he is respectful, as I would have issues with a judge insulting people. It removes him credibility.

[bgwah]

Then I would have the following things to say:

-Opebo is the only Justice to have had an exceptionally long tenure, and of course he would have to be exempt as an incumbent (as the proposed amendment does in fact seem to do)
-In the past, Associate Justices have been elevated to the Chief post because they're often the most qualified person for it. This is something that might become more difficult with the amendment.
-A Justice may not interpret things as strictly as they should if they know they will be forced off the court by an arbitrary limit in the near future.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This isn't done yet, Maxy? I have fewer members on my committee and yet we had a very heated exchange with the President on the Introduction Amendment, a matter of less consequence then this.

I must say that Justice Bgwah's third point is the one of most importance here and one that I find is a deal breaker about this idea. If Justices are constantly expecting to be finding themselves in need of employment as a matter of structure, it will incentivize the politicing of decisions as a means of pleasing an administration in hopes of getting a cabinet to attain a post or a region to improve their chances of winning the Senate seat and so on. The length of the term will only serve to very quality of the decisions based on where they are at with regards the term expiring, which will create a rather unfortunate situation of justice being determined by the calendar and ambition as opposed to the law and the Constitution.

[MaxQue]

This isn't done yet, Maxy? I have fewer members on my committee and yet we had a very heated exchange with the President on the Introduction Amendment, a matter of less consequence then this.

Well, it's easier to get your members around, you have less of them.

Nix, Ben, please.

[MaxQue]

Can we agree to fix the numbering of the clauses, too?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Look, I believe the whole "can't serve consecutive term" is important because there would be a substantial risk of the Justice being influenced by whether he can keep his job.

I have no problem with 2 years term.

There's a problem with the Associate being elevated to Chief. How about a Justice may be elevated to the Chief and serve out the full term in this role has he served no more than half of the original tenure?

[MaxQue]

Well, with non-renewable terms, I'm afraid we will be stuck with Justices with no incentive to work well and causing delays and be lazy.

I still don't see the purpose of tenure, especially if they don't apply to the current Justices. But I'm open to be convinced.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Can we agree to fix the numbering of the clauses, too?

No problem.

Look, I believe the whole "can't serve consecutive term" is important because there would be a substantial risk of the Justice being influenced by whether he can keep his job.

See, I think Justices who are interested in being reappointed are more likely to remain neutral than those who are considering jumping back into politics. I understand the opposite point of view, but I think there's enough of an expectation that a Justice will take his or her job seriously that the reappointment of a blatantly partisan Justice is more unlikely than not. I also believe that the Court can benefit from the experience that a Justice with longer tenure can provide.

I'm prepared to defer to the judgement of my colleagues on this one, though. I'd still vote for a bill that prohibited reappointment. It's the two year terms that I'm most attached to.

This is fair point and I'm willing to get along, but serving 4 years? Maybe we can keep the tenure one year with possible consecutive reappointment?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. Chairman, aren't we do for a topic line change in this? Perhaps that is why you had such trouble herding the flock earlier.

[MaxQue]

Mr. Chairman, aren't we do for a topic line change in this? Perhaps that is why you had such trouble herding the flock earlier.

I've meant to do this, I said myself: "I'll answer to bgwah and then change it, but I answered him and forgot afterwards". It will be done as soon I post that.