The Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) PASSED
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee:
The Supreme Court is the guardian of last resort for constitutional government and the freedoms enshrined therein. I trust that just like in 2013, people will come to their senses and oppose base attempts to induce partisan and factional interests into the jurisprudence of the high court. I too would like a more active and involved court, but I would prefer that its independence be strictly guarded.
Adam Griffin:
Well, first of all, (mostly) regardless of however we decide to reform the judicial branch, I think it's safe to say that we need to maintain the current Justices at the onset of the new game. There will be a "reboot" as I understand it in the executive and legislative branches at the federal level (possibly at the regional level?), where we'll have special elections for all of the positions. It's patently absurd to allow whoever is President at that time to appoint all 3 ( or 5? 7? None?) Justices, given the proclivities among many here, I'm sure, to maintain lifetime appointments.
I suppose it's possible that we decide to go with some form of citizen court or something...in which case, this would no longer be relevant/applicable. I guess we will first have to determine exactly how many Justices will be on the Court and/or whether or not we will maintain a similar system, or move toward something fundamentally different. Once we know that, we can have a vote on retaining the current Court members, depending on the adopted structure. I imagine something like this:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee:
Aside from Opebo, who is long gone, the longest any person has been on the court is two years, though bgwah is creeping towards 4 (only two of which have been in his current position though).
Since Opebo's banning we have had 3 vacancies in the space of under two years. I don't think there has ever been a situation where the judges have been partial or baised based on political influence and considering we have had a liberal court since Bullmoose left in 2009, that says a lot both about the structure and about the types of Justices we have had.
We have had problems with activity and that is 1) a problem because there was a lack of accountability and we fixed that problem. 2) because of a lack of cases and I am interesting in hearing proposals to change that, particularly what Blair has in mind.
Unconditional Surrender Truman:
In the debate over the Executive Branch, we already effectively settled the issue of who appoints the Justices by voting to give that power to the president. It seems to me that the next question would be how many Justices there will be. If there are no objections, I will call a principle vote on the size of the Court tomorrow afternoon.
Personally, I think the current size (3) is about right: any larger would be inadvisable given the fact that we have a shortage of willing officeholders. It seems that others might not feel the same way, however, and I'm interested to hear any arguments for increasing the size of the bench.
Adam Griffin:
Assuming we might wish to fundamentally change how the Court operates, should we first have a principle vote on retaining the type of Court we currently have? I mean, I feel like we're assuming here that the Court will fundamentally function as it currently does (which will probably end up being the case). I have no idea if Blair (or anyone else) had something radically different in mind or not.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page