The Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) PASSED

[Adam Griffin]

[1] Status Quo
[2] Plan "A"
[3] Plan "C"
[4] Plan "B"

[Leinad]

BALLOT

Question: Which of the following options do you prefer?
[1] Plan "B"
[2] Plan "C"
[3] Plan "A"
[4] Abstain
[5] Status Quo

Why are all of these plans better than the status quo?

 - By increasing the number of Justices from three to five, this makes the Supreme Court more interesting (more dissents, more appointments, etc.) while also helping to ensure ideological balance and stability (it now needs three people to make a ruling instead of two).

 - It merges the regional judicial officers with the regional justices, it actually decreases offices compared to the status quo.

 - This also ensures that the regions' powers won't be stripped away by the federal government, but the fact that each region only has a say on their own appointment while the federal government has a say on all five ensures that federal power won't be stripped away, either.

Why is "B" the best option?

 - It's the only one that will always require a Senate hearing for every nominee, including the Regional Associate Justices.

 - The Regional Associate Justices are the Governor's appointment, but the Senate, the President, and the Regional Legislature all get a say (and they all should, given that they will serve not only on the Supreme Court but for their region).

 - The fact that it doesn't need approval from all four of those entities, but three, will greatly help reduce partisan gridlock.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

Seeing no objection, we will now move ahead with the principle vote on the structure of the Supreme Court. In light of recent events, the options on the ballot have changes slightly, so make sure to read the ballot COMPLETELY before casting your vote. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via PM or in this thread: I'd much rather everyone was doubly cautious than have to re-do the vote because some people were confused.

In the interests of making things as clear as possible, I have taken the liberty of standardizing the terminology in each of the three reform proposals. For example, my plan refers to the Regionally-appointed Justices as "Associate Justices," Leinad's newest proposal calls them "Regional Associate Justices," and Kingpoleon's original proposal calls them "Regional Justices": the following ballot uses the term "Associate Justices" on all three plans. This terminology is not fixed, so if we want to debate the titles of the different judges, we can do so at a later date.

Finally, I'd like to thank everyone - and especially Kingpoleon - for being so active and engaged these last few days. I hope we can sustain this kind of enthusiasm as we complete work on the Judicial branch and move towards wrapping up this Constitution.

(Voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.)

PRINCIPLE VOTE on the STRUCTURE of the SUPREME COURT

Carefully read each of the following three Plans; then rank the Plans in order of preference on the ballot provided below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BALLOT

Question: Which of the following options do you prefer?

[4] Plan "A"
[1] Plan "B"
[3] Plan "C"
[2] Status Quo
[   ] Abstain

[Clyde1998]

BALLOT

Question: Which of the following options do you prefer?

[ 4 ] Plan "A"
[ 1 ] Plan "B"
[ 3 ] Plan "C"
[ 2 ] Status Quo
[   ] Abstain

[Blair]

1.Plan C
2. Status Quo
3. Plan B
4. Plan A

[ilikeverin]

1. Plan C
2. Plan B
3. Status Quo
4. Plan A

[tmthforu94]

1. Status Quo

[Associate Justice PiT]

[3] Plan "A"
[1] Plan "B"
[2] Plan "C"
[4] Status Quo
[   ] Abstain

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

1. Plan B
2. Plan C
3. Plan A

[NeverAgain]

[1] Plan "C"
[2] Plan "B"
[3] Plan "A"

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

[1] Plan "C"
[2] Plan "B"
[3] Plan "A"
[4] Status Quo

[Classic Conservative]

1. Plan B
2. Plan C
3. Plan A

[bore]

[3] Plan "A"
[1] Plan "B"
[2] Plan "C"
[4] Status Quo
[   ] Abstain

[Lincoln Republican]

1.  Status Quo

[pikachu]

1. Plan C
2. Status Quo
3. Plan A
4. Plan B

[Prince of Salem]

BALLOT

Question: Which of the following options do you prefer?

[1] Plan "A"
[4] Plan "B"
[2] Plan "C"
[3] Status Quo
[  ] Abstain

[Adam Griffin]

Goddamnit, what are y'all doing...every time I open my mouth in this convention, I grow to regret it.

Also, if principle votes are going to continuously be thrown out the window time and time again in later votes, then why have them in the first place?

[Leinad]

if principle votes are going to continuously be thrown out the window time and time again in later votes, then why have them in the first place?

1. This isn't happening that often. How many times have we thrown out previous principle votes? Maybe it's happening occasionally, but not "time and time again."

2. Why should we be bound to our previous decisions if we have new information that leads a majority of us to reconsider?

In this case, the previous principle vote was in the context of Presidential power, not the Judicial Branch. We didn't really give a second thought to the Supreme Court, as it wasn't yet time to. Now that we are discussing things in a different context (a more relevant, complete context), why can't we alter it if the legitimately elected/appointed delegates decide to?

3. Principle votes are a quick way for us to decide things without getting into the weeds of detailed amendments (see: the mess of amendments and counter-amendments that was the secession debate). They were never supposed to handcuff us to the status quo due to what was an afterthought in a vote on Presidential power.


If you're worried about the current justices and the first President in Atlasia: The Next Generation having enormous power over the makeup of the court, I share those concerns. It's my intention to follow up this discussion, should one of the Bore family of plans pass, with one on how we start off the court. I've already floated ideas based on that--I believe they're on the previous page of replies.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

RESULTS - Principle Vote on Court Structure
Plan "C" (5, 6, 7)
Plan "B" (6, 6, 6)
Status Quo (3, 3, X)
Plan "A" (2, X)
Exhausted (0, 0, 2)

Plan "C" has been adopted.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I will begin work drafting the text for this Article. In the meantime, we need to address the issue of continuity raised by the president:

I do not like the idea of the next President being able to directly confirm all of the Justices at the onset of the game, especially considering that we have no idea what duration (if any) will be prescribed to their terms. I would think most other people share that concern as well; it's a total wildcard and vests too much influence in one person at the onset. I really think it is necessary to preserve the existing Justices in some capacity. Theoretically, each could serve as a Region's Justice, but I'm not sure we could craft any sort of enforcement mechanism to guarantee that. Additionally 2 of the Justices live in the same Region.

There are a couple of ways we could go about this:

1. The two most senior Justices (Bgwah and TJ) serve as the Associate Justices for their Region (the West and the North, respectively) while the third (Windjammer) takes the place of one of the two federal Justices.

2. The current Chief Justice (Bgwah) and one of the two Associate Justices (TJ or Windjammer) continue on as the two federal justices, while the third becomes the Associate Justice for his Region.

Personally, I think option 2 is the best one as it avoids stripping anyone of seniority. Thoughts?

[Kingpoleon]

Thank you, delegates, for the victory of Plan C.

As far as Justices go, I believe plan one is okay, if Windjammer could accept Associate Justice. However, shouldn't the other two require confirmation by their regional legislatures/Governor? It would set a bad precedent for them to be accepted. I would not mind offering to let them decide if they would be willing to do it for the sake of democracy and adherence to the Constitution.

[Leinad]

Plan "C" has been adopted.

It's better than the status quo, so huzzah!

But I would've rathered the Senate had a bigger say in it.

There are a couple of ways we could go about this:

1. The two most senior Justices (Bgwah and TJ) serve as the Associate Justices for their Region (the West and the North, respectively) while the third (Windjammer) takes the place of one of the two federal Justices.

2. The current Chief Justice (Bgwah) and one of the two Associate Justices (TJ or Windjammer) continue on as the two federal justices, while the third becomes the Associate Justice for his Region.

I think #2 is far better, supposing we could get the North to confirm either TJ or Windjammer. Both due to maintaining seniority and letting more regions make their own pick.

If not, the alternatives (that I see) are:

-Forcing one of them down the region's throat (obviously a terrible plan).

-Dumping one of the current Justices (also not good--most likely not fair and very controversial).

-Making it 6 Justices until someone steps down, and simply not replacing the first Federal Associate/Chief Justice to resign (also not that great, but maybe the best option we'd have).

Now, it would be hard to predict whether they would confirm either of them, but in the event they don't we'll need to determine one of these backup plans, or maybe find another.

[Adam Griffin]

if principle votes are going to continuously be thrown out the window time and time again in later votes, then why have them in the first place?

1. This isn't happening that often. How many times have we thrown out previous principle votes? Maybe it's happening occasionally, but not "time and time again."

2. Why should we be bound to our previous decisions if we have new information that leads a majority of us to reconsider?

In this case, the previous principle vote was in the context of Presidential power, not the Judicial Branch. We didn't really give a second thought to the Supreme Court, as it wasn't yet time to. Now that we are discussing things in a different context (a more relevant, complete context), why can't we alter it if the legitimately elected/appointed delegates decide to?

3. Principle votes are a quick way for us to decide things without getting into the weeds of detailed amendments (see: the mess of amendments and counter-amendments that was the secession debate). They were never supposed to handcuff us to the status quo due to what was an afterthought in a vote on Presidential power.


If you're worried about the current justices and the first President in Atlasia: The Next Generation having enormous power over the makeup of the court, I share those concerns. It's my intention to follow up this discussion, should one of the Bore family of plans pass, with one on how we start off the court. I've already floated ideas based on that--I believe they're on the previous page of replies.

That's a lot of words for "I don't understand what constitutes a 'principle vote'". Said principle vote clearly and explicitly outlined who had the power to appoint judges, irrespective of whatever other fetishes regarding Justices were to be added later on.

[Adam Griffin]

I will begin work drafting the text for this Article. In the meantime, we need to address the issue of continuity raised by the president:

I do not like the idea of the next President being able to directly confirm all of the Justices at the onset of the game, especially considering that we have no idea what duration (if any) will be prescribed to their terms. I would think most other people share that concern as well; it's a total wildcard and vests too much influence in one person at the onset. I really think it is necessary to preserve the existing Justices in some capacity. Theoretically, each could serve as a Region's Justice, but I'm not sure we could craft any sort of enforcement mechanism to guarantee that. Additionally 2 of the Justices live in the same Region.

There are a couple of ways we could go about this:

1. The two most senior Justices (Bgwah and TJ) serve as the Associate Justices for their Region (the West and the North, respectively) while the third (Windjammer) takes the place of one of the two federal Justices.

2. The current Chief Justice (Bgwah) and one of the two Associate Justices (TJ or Windjammer) continue on as the two federal justices, while the third becomes the Associate Justice for his Region.

Personally, I think option 2 is the best one as it avoids stripping anyone of seniority. Thoughts?

I obviously support #1, but of course this convention is going to end up supporting #2 since it's the biggest handout to "the Regions" and gives them more influence over the new Court than #1...just like they're being given more and more influence over everything at the expense of every other entity.

The sensible approach is to make bgwah Pacific Justice and one of TJ/Windjammer Mideast Justice and Federal Justice, as this would leave 1 position to be filled by the Regions and 1 position to be filled by the Executive once we reset. Option 2 completely blocks the Executive's role in initial selection and lets 2/3 Regions stack the court so that we may avoid the horror of indeterminate shoving of things down throats, but only if those throats belong to Regions.

I don't really get the concern about seniority. The only reason it matters is because we currently determine Chief based on that. We should hold a principle vote on whether or not to retain seniority as the determinant, and then proceed to hold a later vote on adopting a new way to select the Chief.

[Kingpoleon]

Should the Justices elect a Chief Justice from one of the two Associate Justices? Or should it be by appointment?