SENATE BILL: Judicial Tenure Amendment (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: MaxQue (I think he posted before Gass3268).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Before I start quoting the Federalist Papers at length as to why this is a bad idea, the sponsor has 24 hours to start advocating for this.


Also, I wouldn't recommend anyone suggesting the use of UC here. It isn't good for your health, I can assure you.

[TNF]

I'd like to propose an amendment to this amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MaxQue]

That amendment is HOSTILE. Electing judges is making them partisan and they see laws through partisan lens instead of the correct legal ones.

Defence is coming in the next hour.

[MaxQue]

I decided to assume sponsorship of this bill since I worked on it during the committee study of that project. As I'm the only person involved in that still here (Kalwejt resigned, Nix is now President and Ben left Senate).

Current writing is creating tenure, term of a year, consecutive terms aren't allowed. We talked of many points (the concept of tenure, consecutiveness, term limits). We also discussed the ideas with the Justices.

So, current text doesn't apply to current Justices.

The idea of tenure was born during the delays incident, when a case took for than 1 month to reach a decision. Right now, Justices are named until they resign or leave the game. Bgwah sits on it since March 2012 (16 months), Ebowed since July 2010 (3 years, 36 months) and opebo since October 2006 (6 years and 9 months, 81 months). It's a very long time for an Internet game, probably too long.

However, various persons have talked about different points:

Bgwah: The Chief Justice is usually an experienced Justice, which wouldn't be possible with term limits. Some Justies may base their decisions on which would lead to the best future or the best odds at renomination, instead of real law.

Yankee expressed the same ideas, where the Justices will be more focused on their future employment than on making decisions based on law.

Then-President Marokai thought than, given the nature of the game, terms longer than one year were wrong.

Then-Senator Nix wanted to alow consecutive tenues and extend the term to 2 years and thought than the possibility of renewal would lead Justices to be more productive and neutral.

Then-Sponsor Kalwejt thought than Nix idea would lead Justices to rule in the way they Government wants them to. He open to the idea of extending terms to 2 years, but not to consecutive terms.

Finally committee voted a "recommendation", than absolutely no one cares about:

2-1 for tenure (Me, Nix vs. Ben)
2-1 for 1-year term (Me, Ben vs. Nix, which wanted 2 years).
2-1 for renewable (Me, Nix vs. Ben).

As you can see, there is a lots of variables and I expect that thing to stay on the floor for a moment and to see amendments going on some of those items.

[Gass3268]

Presidential terms here in Atlasia are 4 months, which means that 1 month is essentially 1 year in real life. That means that Bgwah has been on for 16 years, Ebowed for 36 years and opebo for 81 years! A term at 16 years is normal, a term of 36 is getting towards the end and 81 years is impossible. Just food for thought.

[Napoleon]

Presidential terms here in Atlasia are 4 months, which means that 1 month is essentially 1 year in real life. That means that Bgwah has been on for 16 years, Ebowed for 36 years and opebo for 81 years! A term at 16 years is normal, a term of 36 is getting towards the end and 81 years is impossible. Just food for thought.

The thing is, Court cases just don't come around that often. With the Presidency, you know you'll be involved. Oakvale was on the Court for six months or longer and was involved in what, a single court case?

With an active AG like DemPGH and a rather annoying lawyer wannabe like myself or BK, that could be different but historically the opportunities to even participate as a Justice were scarce.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would prefer to get to the vote as soon as possible (nine whatever this morning), but I must require that TNF use some means to indicate the changes being made such as bold or italics. I don't want a repeat of that incident last Senate.



"I would inform the chairman that the rules do care". Sorry, Maxy, I just coudln't resist a Gore moment there.

In my opinion we have already resolved the issue of Justices and inactivity with the "Expectations Amendment" as it has been called for short. If a justice misses posting on two cases, we proceed automatically with an impeachment proceeding.

This is, like so many "wonderful ideas" proposed to address a problem", latches onto a tengentially related proposal as a solution for an activity problem, and one that often carries an unnecessary sacrifice in terms of how best to organize the government, which we are told must be made for the sake of activity. However, this is not about activity in my opinion as we have sufficient means to deal with them on a basis directly connected to that problem, an activity standard tied to an impeachment proceeding. This is about how we want to structure our goverment so that it best serves and protects the people who create it for such purposes.

In this particular case (pun intended ) the problem we face when considering whether or not to have judicial terms of any kind, whether it be one, two, or how ever many years, is that inevitably it runs out and as the sand begins to get low in the top half, so to does the perverse incentive to rule not based on what the Constitution and law says, but instead based on what can best get them elected Senator of the IDS or Pacific, or Governor or President, increase in proportionally with each increment of time that passes by towards the end of their terms.

The effect of this is that the end of a proper and functioning judicial system, which is that of blind and equal justice will be put at risk. The natural state of things could very well produce the same perverse incentives, that is true, but the difference here is that we would be institutionalizing this perverse incentive into the structure of the court and there by authorizing and encouraging it.

For those that "OH THOSE WORTHLESS COMMITTEES", I found the exchange on this particular matter to have been quite interesting. Everyone, practically everyone agrees with my opinion on this matter, but they only apply it in the micro as opposed to the macro sense and they have convinced themselves that this has to be done for a variety of reasons. They thus come up with all kinds of ways to fix it. Make it renewable to create an incentive towards competence so that they might get reappointed, but no, no, no, you cannot do that because it will lead to an incentive to please the executive branch at the expense of the others and wittle down the Seperation of Powers. The committee hearing made abundantly clear that nearly everyone of the supporters of this change, think that the concern I have expressed quite clearly is both real and dangerous. The hearing also made clear that there is no means under the sun to fix that problem without in the process effectuating the moving of it from one perverse incentive to another. Which is what I call a perpetuation, not a fix (kind of like Comprehensive Immigration Reform. ). Indeed I think the hearing has shown not only the weakenesses of the legislation in question, but also the myth that is the critiques of the committee system as being worthless.

When you step back and question the real necessity behind this, you understand that just like on so much being peddled as the solution to our problems, it is instead preferred means of organizing the government with little or no direct connection to solving activity but yet it is claimed to be necessitated by such, that will prove to be deeply damaging to our courts and our judicial system, with no means in sight by which to alleviated or remove that concerns so as to remove it entirely and thus make this Amendment even the slighltest bit less damanging.

to be continued...

[TNF]

I would like to withdraw my proposed amendment in favor of the following text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm not opposed to a limit, but one year is too short. Four months is ridiculous. Three years is more in the ballpark that I could go for.

[Gass3268]

I'd be cool with a max of two years, which would equate to about 24 RL years.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'd support two if it ultimately came down to it, yeah.

[MaxQue]

The new amendment is AGAIN hostile.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'll support a term of in the range of two years, but nothing shorter and certainly not Supreme Court elections.

[Napoleon]

I will vote for any amendments that make this less likely to pass.

[TJ in Oregon]

I will vote for any amendments that make this less likely to pass.

Last time this idea was proposed, you suggested increasing the number of Supreme Court justices. What do you think of that idea now?

[Sbane]

I don't think I can vote for anything less than a 4 year term. I can understand the argument that time goes faster on the internet and some on the court have been on for a ridiculously long time, but I like that the Supreme Court is a lifelong position. Both in RL and here in Atlasia. That being said, a 4 year term is equivalent to a 48 year term and I suppose that is long enough. My ideal would be a 5 year term.

[Napoleon]

I will vote for any amendments that make this less likely to pass.

Last time this idea was proposed, you suggested increasing the number of Supreme Court justices. What do you think of that idea now?

Last time I could have appointed them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Vote to come later this morning.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't think I can vote for anything less than a 4 year term. I can understand the argument that time goes faster on the internet and some on the court have been on for a ridiculously long time, but I like that the Supreme Court is a lifelong position. Both in RL and here in Atlasia. That being said, a 4 year term is equivalent to a 48 year term and I suppose that is long enough. My ideal would be a 5 year term.

Doesn't that basically concede that the basic premise behind this is flawed beyond repair?

Also, I would like to point out that the formula for real versus Atlasia years is getting kind of ridiculous at this point. I mean it sort of reminds of me of that 911*X thing they did in Team America: World Police (which should illustrate the amount of ridiculousness ).

I will reiterate my point, any term of any length, will institutionalize unequal justice based on political calculations becoming more and more present as the term winds down, one way or the other in terms of how long or what other limits are affixed.

I plan to have another medium length post tomorrow if all goes as planned, to reinforce the point.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I wouldn't apply it retroactively, but that's just my preference.

[Napoleon]

So what about when DemPGH and I aren't around to give the Supreme Court something to do? We are back to one case a year. Even most of the criminal cases of the last few years involved peolle trying trying to illegally interefere with me winning office!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: A vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[MaxQue]

NAY

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. President (of the Senate), I rise this Sunday morning to continue my opposition to the underlying legislation.

Last time I made the case that doing this to address an activity problem was misguided because 1) we had already addressed that and 2) the risk posed by this change was too great to justify it being done for a reason that ill justified it being done. Now I plan to continue by responding to the other justification used for this and that justification is one of it being necessary by virture of this being a game as opposed to real life and therefore that cross application is unwarranted in terms of having life time appointments, because it is afterall, just a game. That participation must take priority since it is the life blood of this game and therefore these limits are necessary for that reason as well.

I figure there are many who would say that I favor "cross-application" in all instances because it seems that we are always talking about issues where I support it. There are some instances where I do think that taking things directly from how things are done in real life and doing that here, would be a grave a mistake. One of them is how the Senate is administered. The game is driven by participation and competition in elections and the impartial administration of the Senate helps to maintain that. We have five slots to that go to the legislation in the order that it was introduced and five to six for things that the President/adminstration/PPT want brought up, regardless of said order. This ensures that whoever is a sitting Senator has a chance to get legislation on the floor regardless of whether or not they are favored by the President, by the PPT or the Vice President or the majority party or bloc. Doing it this way encourages all people to participate, regardless of party or their tendency to go rogue, because they can be heard and get there ideas on the floor. Were we not to do this, were we to do it like Reid and the boys in real life, it would have the effect of exascerbating what problems we have with participation as it is in the Senate and discourage disfavored groups from running for the Senate for fear they will be silenced by the power the structure.

When in comes to the Judiciary Branch; however, in order to achieve the same objective, you have to take the exact opposite approach to real life concepts and insist on termless judges. The reason for that is because if you don't, if you term them out, regardless of whether or not they are renewable, regardless of whether or not it is one year, two years or four years, you are creating an perverse incentive towards unequal and biased justice, and worse, you are institutionalizing it, you are erecting it into the structure. The temptation to "make arrangements" while still on the court while ever present, will now possess a Constitutional endorsement, and will now occur much more frequently. As I previously state, the definition of law will vary based on where they are at in the term. If they need to be reappointed, they will favor the very power structure I mentioned before that could discourage people from running for the Senate if they controlled what got considered and what did not. If they are term limited out they will seek to please a region or the people of the country or the administration once again so as to provide for there future employment.

Suppose two justices just happened to be termed out on August 1st, 2009. Suddenly that ruling that decided the June Presidential election might vary based on who offered them the best cabinet post. Suppose a justices term limited out in early 2012 and was looking to run for office in the IDS, suddenly Dibbles don't sound so unconstitution no more. Or if Opebo was to be termed out on July 1st, 2012, and between him and Tweed's VP, Bgwah, they just decide that Nappy was just too aggressive and Tweed is da man. Now I doubt any of these people mentioned would actually do these things but the incentive, the inducement towards corruption of the Justices becomes present once you have limited their tenure to a set time. The effect of such would be to discourage participation in the game, the same way partisan administration of the Senate would discourage people from running for the Senate or participating once they get there.

Sometimes you have to do things differently because this is a game and the way the Senate operates is one of those things. Other times you have to cross apply certain docrines like "life on good behavior", as Publius (Quicker then researching which of those three cats wrote the entry in question) famously described the judges of the RL Supreme variety in the Federalist Papers, which will serve encourage participation in the game based on the knowledge that they can receive a fair hearing from the court system. The good behavior part is the ensure by the mechanism of impeachment, which allows us to impeach for crimes and misdemeanors and now for incompetence and inactivity thanks to the "On Second Thought, We Do Have Expections" Amendment.

To apply the notion that this is game as a justification for passing the underlying Amendment to the Constitution, is a misguided approach to the game aspect, since adoption of this amendment will actually be a disservice to the game and to participation in it.