The Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) PASSED

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Hear ye! Hear ye! Having seen the adoption of the Article addressing the Presidency and subordinate officers, this Convention will now turn its attention to the Judicial branch of the national government. As a third of our membership is campaigning for office this weekend (including the entire Southern delegation), I will refrain from calling any votes on proposed amendments or questions of principle until the ongoing federal elections have concluded on Monday; however, delegates are welcome to express their thoughts in this thread until then.

I now open the floor for debate.

[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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you proposing added powers for the judiciary, or simply structural changes (fixed terms, etc.)?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Griffin makes a fair point - I know Blair had mentioned wanting to see changes made to the structure of the Court, and it would be helpful to hear those ideas before we make any binding decisions. I'll suspend my motion for now to allow delegates to put forward proposals; if there is no further debate, we'll move ahead with a principle vote on the size of the bench.

I encourage everyone who has even a vague idea about making a change to the Court to speak up - silence will be interpreted as support for the status quo, so don't be timid!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Likewise I'd be open to a rotating court that allows every President to appoint a Justice-it's just a question of whether we can get enough interest?

This pretty much sums up my view. Off the top of my head, I suppose we could set it up so that Justices could serve in other offices when they're not on the bench. For example:

Say there are nine Justices appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for life terms: three of these Justices sit on the Court at any given time, while the other six are on the sidelines. Every four months, the three sitting Justices step down and three of the Justices on the sideleines step up: thus, in a given year, each Justice would spend four months on the bench and eight months off. Depending on how we set up the rotation system (whether selection is fixed or randomized), it might be possible to allow Justices to hold other positions while they're not on the bench, though that might interfere with their ability to be impartial and independent of the rest of the government.

If we go with a rotating bench, we'll need to decide whether rotation is random (i.e. every four months we pull three names out of a hat, and those three Justices become the Court) or set (i.e. we have one set of Justices who serve January-April, one set who serve April-August, and one set who serve August-December). Each system has its flaws: in the first, some Justices may be on the bench more often than others, which gives them uneven influence; in the second, plaintiffs might strategically arrange their cases for times when the composition of the Court is more favorable to their position.

I also think Pikachu makes a good point about the activity of the Court being dependent on public participation. Our goal is to create a government that is conducive to activity, but we can't manufacture interest out of thin air. You can lead a horse to water...

But I'm getting ahead of myself. If there are no objections, I will call a principle vote on the proposed rotating bench tomorrow afternoon.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seeing no objection, we will now proceed with a principle vote on the proposed rotating bench. Voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.

For the sake of clarity, the "Fixed Bench" is the system that the existing Supreme Court uses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

RESULTS - Principle Vote on the Supreme Court Bench
Fixed Bench     (15) ✓
Rotating Bench (4)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Here's my two cents on Bore's proposal:

1) The Convention has already voted to vest the power of appointing the Supreme Court in the presidency (the margin of this vote was 18-0). I'm not comfortable in overturning the result of that vote, even partially, unless there is a broad consensus to do so.

2) Assuming such a consensus exists, I worry that this measure would disrupt the balance of power both within the federal government and between the central authority and the Regions. Keep in mind that we have already given the Regions full jurisdiction to regulate elections for the Senate. If a majority of the Court is appointed by the Regions, there would be no institution with the ability to maintain federal authority against Regional assault (other than the presidency, whose actions the Court could simply overrule). In general, I'm fully supportive of devolution and have voted for it in the past. In this case, however, I worry that we would be weakening the central government to the point where the political process is just as imbalanced as it is now, only with the opposite slant.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I like Kingpoleon's idea of having Regional Justices be jointly appointed by the president and the governors. I would definitely consider supporting this proposal if that change was incorporated.

I don't agree that there is no danger in upsetting the balance of power, however: in the past year alone, we've seen separatist movements take hold in two Regions as well as an attempt to allow Regions to mint their own currencies, tax "imports" from other Regions, and abolish the Senate's power to regulate interregional commerce. Just as the Regions need recourse to protect the integrity of their institutions, the federal government must be able to maintain its authority against opportunistic assaults. As the Supreme Court has (and will presumably retain) the power to set binding policy in regards to Constitutional interpretation, I'm not comfortable in allowing the Regions to unilaterally appoint a majority of that body.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I offer the following counter-proposal (essentially a mixture of Bore's plan and Kingpoleon's idea).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Bore is willing to withdraw his proposal, we could hold a principle vote on this sometime this weekend.

I have no right to speak here,

To the contrary, you have every right to speak here - the more citizen input, the better!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

My only concern would be that we're weakening the power of the Presidency even further; would the Chief Justice have any specific powers that would mean the President's pick is of more important?

I tend to agree with this. Sadly, I can't think of a way to fix this problem without making the confirmation process even more drawn out than it already is.

Basically, these are the ideas that have been discussed so far:

   • Bore's Plan: 2 Justices appointed by the Pres., 3 Justices appointed by the Regions
   • My Plan: 2 Justices appointed by the Pres., 3 Justices appointed jointly by the Pres. and the Regions
   • Kingpoleon's Plan: 1 Justice appointed by the Pres., 1 Chief Justice appointed by the Pres.
     (Regions have veto power), 3 Justices appointed by the Regions (Pres. has veto power)
   • Status Quo: All Justices appointed by the Pres.

Of the first three proposals, I prefer my plan (obviously), but all have their pros and cons. I worry that Kingpoleon's proposal would make it very hard to fill vacancies on the Court in a timely manner. For example, nominating and confirming the Chief Justice would require the concurrence of the president, a majority of the Senate, and all three governors under this proposal. That seems like a recipe for gridlock to me (though I appreciate the effort to balance all the competing concerns that have been raised, which is no easy feat).

I don't know - I love the idea behind Bore's plan, but I'm not sure how we could make it work without compromising the power of either the Regions or the presidency.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'd be okay with Truman's if the regional legislatures get a say--after all, the regional associate justices will be the regional judicial officers as well.

I'm okay with this. Suppose we had the Senate confirm the (federal) Justices and the Regional legislatures confirm the Associate (Regional) Justices? That would avoid a lengthy confirmation process while still giving the Regions a say in the matter.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I could get behind Kingpoleon's plan if we remove the gubernatorial veto of the Chief Justice. That seems to me to be an unnecessary complication of what would already be a very decentralized process. Clearly, the Regions should have some say in selecting the Justices who will preside over their courts, but Justices whose duties are wholly federal in nature should be selected by federal officials.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If there are no objections within 24 hours, I will begin a principle vote on this question. Said vote will have four options: Plan A (Kingpoleon/Bore's Plan), Plan B (My plan, with the changes noted here), the Status Quo, and Abstain. Like other multi-option principle votes, the vote will be by STV.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I could get behind Kingpoleon's plan if we remove the gubernatorial veto of the Chief Justice. That seems to me to be an unnecessary complication of what would already be a very decentralized process. Clearly, the Regions should have some say in selecting the Justices who will preside over their courts, but Justices whose duties are wholly federal in nature should be selected by federal officials.

Very well. I hereby remove the gubernatorial veto, as suggested by bore and Truman.

Excellent. I believe we are now proposing essentially the same thing (2 Justices appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, 3 Regional/Associate Justices appointed jointly by the Governors and the President and confirmed by the Regional legislatures), which will make the principle vote much more straight-forward.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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?

[   ] Plan "A"
[   ] Plan "B"
[   ] Plan "C"
[   ] Status Quo
[   ] Abstain

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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

[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?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

Good point - not only does Option 2 effectively eliminate the next president's ability to influence the Court to any degree, it would also likely mean that we would have to make do with a severely understaffed court for several weeks at least (as it will likely take some time for the Regions to adopt a Constitution and elect a functioning government).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

As promised, here is an amendment incorporating the results of the most recent principled vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once this has been adopted, we will proceed with votes on holding over the incumbent Justices and the Chief Justiceship.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seeing no objection, the amendment has been adopted.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Delegates have 24 hours to object to Truman's amendment. That said, I highly doubt there will be any controversy surrounding this, as I effectively copied-and-pasted Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (if it ain't broke, don't fix it).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seeing no objection, Truman's Amendment has been adopted.


I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Delegates have 24 hours to object to Truman's amendment.

Basically, this amendment allows for the incumbent Supreme Court Justices to be retained once the new Constitution is ratified. This prevents the new president/governors from having undue influence over the judiciary, as Griffin warned against prior to the last vote. Under this particular proposal, the two most senior Justices (Ebowed and TJ) would become the Associate Justices for the West and the North, while the third (Windjammer) would become one of the two federal Justices. This way, the ability to fill the two new seats will be balanced between the national government and the Regions, as there will be one vacant federal seat and one vacant Regional seat.