The Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) PASSED (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:08:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  The Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) PASSED (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) PASSED  (Read 22488 times)
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« on: February 24, 2016, 02:32:39 AM »

I encourage everyone who has even a vague idea about making a change to the Court to speak up

I suppose I have vague ideas, but not really anything substantive yet.

Finding some way to increase the number of cases would be great, but I'm also unsure on how to do it. Perhaps involving GM activity? That would probably open the door to controversy, not that that would be entirely bad.

I'd be open to some sort of radical change here, as long as it would actually help matters without causing too many more problems. I likewise have no objection to simply accepting the status quo with a minor tweak or two and then carrying on to the next topic.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2016, 08:03:50 PM »

X Fixed



How would you envision the GM activity lead to more court activity?

Not entirely sure. Perhaps by creating cases for them to argue?

It was merely a seed of an idea I was floating out there for someone to water should they choose to, if you're following my metaphor.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #2 on: February 29, 2016, 07:38:52 PM »

Why not have each region choose an associate justice who also doubles up as their head judge, and the president and the senate and president choose the chief justice and 1 associate justice.  Not only would you give more influence to regional legislatures and governors, you'd have a 5 seat supreme court leading to more interesting decisions, more possibility of dissents, and you'd have one less judge overall, so still a reduction in offices.

I like this idea. Any thoughts/alternate opinions on this?
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2016, 04:59:25 AM »

Regarding the principle vote on giving Supreme Court appointing power to the President, 1) that was before this proposal, so I think it's fair to let the delegates take a second look at the matter with this in mind, and 2) that vote was "to appoint the justices of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate"--the argument could be made that it didn't necessarily mean all the justices, although I much prefer my first argument regarding the new information.

Regarding the balance of power, I'm not sure how much stock I put into this. What could 3 regional justices do to ruin the country? Obviously they'd look out for their region, and regions in general, but I doubt 3 justices would do something to mess up Atlasia for everyone just for the temporary gain their region could receive.

Now, I'm not saying there aren't negatives to the Bore Plan. But I think the positives outweigh them:

-It increases the number of justices on the court. This will make it more interesting, but also more fair. This is unarguably a positive in a vacuum.

-It decreases the total number of offices! This is also, obviously, a good thing in a vacuum. This is probably the only plan that decreases the total number of offices yet increases the number of Supreme Court justices--it's a voodoo judiciary!

-It adds a level of importance to the regions, not to mention a level of representation. This will help to ensure that regions will never be robbed of their right to (within Constitutional reason) govern themselves. It will add an extra perk of being Governor, and of being the regional judicial authority (we call it the Judicial Overlord down in the South, but I know it has different names in different places).

It's Truman's call, but I think we should bring the Bore Plan up to a principle vote. And this is the call of every delegate at this Convention, but I think we should vote in favor of this plan.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2016, 02:35:02 AM »

I get what you're saying regarding the balance of power, Truman, but I still think it's a minor concern (although it is indeed a concern--one that I think Kingpoleon's idea clears up).

Example: let's say that the NNP starts back up again, they're trying to get the new North to separate, and there's a court case regarding their right to do that. Why would the South and West regions support that if it wasn't the right thing to do? Can you think of any specific idea that will hurt Atlasia that all 3 regional justices would sign on to? It's hard to imagine.



A work-around:

Have the Governor nominate judges, the regional legislatures vote for approval, but the President will have the power of vetoing the justice and asking for their resignation. For the chief justice, the President will nominate him or her, the federal legislature approves it, and any two governors can veto it. The chief justice is accountable to the regions. It's possible the chief justice doesn't need the governors to be able to veto it, but otherwise it could be hated by Governors.


There! No need to overturn or retry the principle vote,

Kingpoleon, that's brilliant! It's a good way to eliminate both of Truman's concerns: the balance of power problem and the problem of that pesky principle vote giving the President power to appoint Supreme Court justices.

I also presume, Kingpoleon, that the non-regional Associate Justice will be nominated/approved in the same way you're suggesting the Chief Justice would be, correct?

How would the Senate factor into this, exactly? That's the big question as of now--especially if we're going to follow that pesky principle vote from earlier (although I still don't think we're completely bound by it--that's ultimately Truman's call).

Hopefully we can iron out the details and put it to a vote ASAP. And hopefully the vote will be affirmative--the Bore-Kingpoleon plan would be great for Atlasia.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2016, 02:06:40 AM »

I like Kingpoleon's plan the best, although it might need more tinkering. 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.

Either way, I think Bore's basic idea is a must have--where it's increased to 5 and merged with the regional justices.

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.

I totally agree, the current justices should be maintained.

Here's an idea: the Regional Associate Justices get appointed first, with the understanding that one of them appoints a current justice. At that point, the other two current justices are appointed as Chief Justice and Federal Associate Justice. The enforcement method would be the President's veto. That might not be fair to whichever region is doing this, so unless they want to appoint the justice voluntarily, we should go with another plan...

Idea #2: we start off with 6 justices, keeping the three we have. When one of the Federal Associate Justices resigns, we don't appoint a replacement, we just maintain 5 from then on.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, the basic idea is that those offices are being merged into the Supreme Court, unless I severely misunderstood Bore's original plan.

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).

It already needs the President and the Senate, and it's actually not all three governors, but merely two of them. Or at least two of them not vetoing--it could presumably be done without explicit approval, just a lack of vetoes.

It would only be slightly more of a recipe for gridlock than the current process. Hopefully the occasional need for compromise and the increase from 3 to 5 would raise the quality of the court.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2016, 10:50:45 PM »

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.

I like that, but are the Regional Associate Justices appointed by the Governor with veto power by the President, or "appointed jointly?" I know there aren't many differences, but I'd much prefer the former because 1) it's simpler--I mean, how would they both appoint them? Would one of them stand behind the other in the style of Chris Christie? 2) it means the President would need to publically veto nominee for the Governor's pick to fail, which would only happen if the nominee is widely disliked, thus protecting the Governor's upper-hand in his/her only pick.

Honestly, what I'd like for the Regional Associate Justice is this: the Governor makes the pick, the President can veto it, but the Senate could veto the President's veto in the same way that they can turn down a President's Supreme Court nominations. What do you guys think about that?
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2016, 04:57:03 AM »

Pikachu makes a great point. I think the best way to do this is to incorporate the Senate into the proceedings.

How about this:

The Bore-Kingpoleon-Truman-Leinad Plan:

Chief Justice: appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate.
Federal Associate Justice: appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate.
Regional Associate Justices: appointed by the Governor of said region, and confirmed by at least two of the following: the President, the Senate, and the Legislature of said region.

The Senate and Regional Legislature could hold a joint confirmation hearing, and then each of them can separately vote on it. If both agree, the nominee is confirmed/rejected, and if it's split, the President decides.

This way gives the Senate a say, and it requires approval from either the executive or legislature of both the Federal and Regional governments, but none of them could hold the process hostage without the help of another.

The point: there needs to be a way to ensure they're vetted by both the Federal and Regional governments, because their job requires expertise in both. If someone has a better plan to do this and still retain Bore's original idea, I'll gladly move this one aside!

But until then, I'd like for Truman to include this plan in the principle vote.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2016, 05:24:59 AM »

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.


Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2016, 12:40:18 AM »
« Edited: March 12, 2016, 12:44:36 AM by Governor 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.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2016, 01:33:34 AM »


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.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2016, 05:25:57 AM »


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.

What?

This is like planning a wedding before consulting with the other spouse, and then saying to them "while I think you have a good idea, this is my original plan, and I'm going to stick with that even though your idea is better!"

Maybe that's a bad analogy, but it should be a no-brainer that we are allowed to reconsider once we actually start thinking about something. Look at the thread, not one person talked about the Supreme Court in that principle vote you're trying to hand-cuff us to! In the context of that principle vote, not a single post was made about the Judicial Branch, and you think it should rigidly dictate the Judicial Branch? That's blatant absurdity of the highest degree!

You're just trying to keep the status quo, and instead of attacking the merits of the plan itself (do you have any substantive problems with it?) you're resorting to tying us to one-line in a principle vote on presidential powers, and now calling your opponents ignorant for not treating principle votes with the same dogmatic attachment that you do.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2016, 08:46:24 AM »

If you're trying to say "we didn't have a long, drawn-out debate over whether this should be the way it is", well...you could say that about virtually every power given to the Executive branch thus far (as well as plenty of other provisions adopted elsewhere). It wasn't debated in-depth because it was a no-brainer, as clearly evidence by the unanimous support it received.

You're not misunderstanding what I'm saying, I don't think, although I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, in which case we could both be misunderstanding each other in hefty doses.

Yes, it was unanimous and a "no-brainer" because we didn't really think of the options. That line in the principle vote was akin to an object on a shelf or an unpacked box that has gone untouched for years, in that no one really noticed the court question except as a minor detail in a busy room.

My point isn't a complicated one: we shouldn't be 100% bound to a principle vote that none of us gave a second thought to, realizing that we were going to talk about the courts later but not realizing that we might come up with a plan that involved merging the regional justices into the Supreme Court.

I have no "status quo argument," my argument is that you are opposing Bore's idea and it's derivatives not because of substance but because you think we should treat all principle votes as if they came down from Mount Sinai on a stone tablet. You can oppose it, but you've given no reason other than that one line of a principle vote (and my "ignorance"). The truth is that I don't believe in an "iron fist," I believe in deciding what's best for the new Constitution. Sometimes that means changing our minds when we think of new ideas.

Does that clear things up?
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2016, 03:48:11 AM »

When did Ebowed become a Justice? I think you mean Bgwah Tongue (Although I could understand the confusion--two members of "other" parties in the Pacific region.)

Also, I object. I think we should (quickly) put this up to a principle vote based on your first two ideas.

I prefer the other plan myself, as it gives regions more control over their judicial officers. The current 3 have already been approved as Federal Supreme Court Justices, so it won't be a problem to mandate they carry on at those roles, while none of them have been approved as justices for their region. They're not merely Supreme Court Justices, remember, they hold both jobs.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2016, 08:38:15 PM »

I prefer the other plan myself, as it gives regions more control over their judicial officers. The current 3 have already been approved as Federal Supreme Court Justices, so it won't be a problem to mandate they carry on at those roles, while none of them have been approved as justices for their region. They're not merely Supreme Court Justices, remember, they hold both jobs.
I get where you're coming from, but I think its important that both the Regions and the next president have some say in shaping the court. This Convention has understandably taken great care to preserve the rights of the Regions, but we shouldn't forget that the national people have rights as well. I would be very concerned were the Convention to remove the next presidents right to fill one of the new seats, especially considering the tendency of the national popular vote to differ from the outcome of individual Regional elections.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from as well. To me it's less of a matter of shaping the court, but one of choosing the individual positions themselves. When it comes to the Regional Associate Justices, they should require both the approval of the federal government and the regional one, since they'll need to do both jobs. I don't like the idea of appointing someone with only half of that vetting process done, when these Justices are fully vetted for the Federal-only seats on the bench. It seems we'll have to do it at least once, I'd simply like to do that as little as possible.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2016, 12:28:21 AM »


PRINCIPLE VOTE on RETENTION

Question: In what capacity, if at all, should the incumbent Supreme Court Justices be retained?

[ 2 ] Plan "A"
[ 1 ] Plan "B"
[ 4 ] None of the Above
[ 3 ] Abstain




None of the above. Names of specific citizens shouldn't be in the constitution. If I'm thinking in error I will consider changing my vote.

If that was the case I'd agree, but as Truman says, they won't be.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2016, 10:08:13 PM »

Wait, did the convention actually adopt my idea of having the associate judges ride circuit as chief judicial officer in their regions? If so, bravo!

Or did someone else have that idea before me? Looking at the thread I see bore proposed something similar. Either way, I appear to be the first to connect this to the idea of sitting in circuit. I humbly request my name be entered in the record as having contributed at this stage. Cheesy

The Bore-Kingpoleon-Truman-Leinad-Simfan plan! Tongue

It was a team effort. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to credit you with an assist as well.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2016, 08:17:44 PM »
« Edited: March 21, 2016, 08:19:36 PM by Governor Leinad »

Uh, neither Truman nor Leinad had their contributions finalized, and I don't think Bore knew of Simfan's plan. Tongue

Not to sound like Trump, but without my help I'm not sure if it would've became a topic of conversation. I was the first one to express my support for Bore's idea after he had it.

(Yeah, that totally sounded like Trump. Intentionally. But me and Truman were a big part of fleshing the idea out and passing it.)


To clarify (for Truman's sake), this is replacing your previous vote, correct?
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2016, 05:52:50 AM »


This is why the "none of the above" people (well, everyone really, but in these case them specifically) should enter more preferences. I never understood why someone would simply enter one preference in an IRV election, unless they're 100% sure it's one of the top two...
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #19 on: March 25, 2016, 09:33:14 AM »

Why exactly do we need regions having a say in who sits on the federal Supreme Court? Where are all my separation of power regionalists here? What if the federal government had a say on who sits on regional courts?

Ideally, no one will get confirmed for those three seats who isn't approved by both the federal and regional governments.

A major argument in favor is that the Supreme Court will be better due to having more offices--more balance in ideas and more chances of dissents, making for a more interesting court. And it does this while decreasing the overall office total by merging into it an office that, let's face it, is about as eventful as "A New Start" party meetings. I appointed Small L Judicial Overlord in August, and his successor just took office. In that time, he had literally zero cases. None. Now the office is one that gives the regions a voice in federal law, and from how I see it makes the Supreme Court better and more interesting.

At this point, it's passed, and due to the "iron fisted" approach that has been prescribed by some, it will be very hard to overturn the result of the principle votes without a large consensus to do so, especially since this was after considering all the angles (unlike the previous principle vote--surely everyone sees the difference).

I wish everyone could agree on everything, but obviously that's not the case. After going through the circus that was the South American Last Will and Testament Provisional Parliament, I certainly know what it's like to have minority opinions in a group such as this. Trust me, you're handling it better than I did! Tongue



Just end this travesty quickly. Did you all really have to give Atlasia such a drawn out death?

We discussed the idea that Atlasia is dead. And that argument decisively lost. Atlasia is on a much better course due to this Convention than due to any of the dissolutionist movements that sprang up last year.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #20 on: March 26, 2016, 01:40:44 AM »

Yes, this Constitution is how we're saving Atlasia. I'm completely fine with people disagreeing about how to do it, but this is a document that will do far more good than bad, and it will not fail because Atlasia needs it to succeed. Those of us who want to play Atlasia, such as myself, Truman, and many others, will make it succeed, and those who disagree...well, why would you care if you don't want to participate anymore? Rhetorical question, of course, because we had that debate last year. Again, the results were conclusive.

I would be inclined to support (A) as well, for the reasons Truman stated. Additionally, IRL Chief Justices are picked by the President (to say, separately from Associate Justices), and an extra element of realism in the game is always a nice touch.

Yeah, they are picked by the President, and the difference of A and B didn't change that. The question was about the retention of the current justices (bgwah, TJ, and windjammer).
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #21 on: March 26, 2016, 02:37:15 PM »

Yes, this Constitution is how we're saving Atlasia. I'm completely fine with people disagreeing about how to do it, but this is a document that will do far more good than bad, and it will not fail because Atlasia needs it to succeed. Those of us who want to play Atlasia, such as myself, Truman, and many others, will make it succeed, and those who disagree...well, why would you care if you don't want to participate anymore? Rhetorical question, of course, because we had that debate last year. Again, the results were conclusive.

I would be inclined to support (A) as well, for the reasons Truman stated. Additionally, IRL Chief Justices are picked by the President (to say, separately from Associate Justices), and an extra element of realism in the game is always a nice touch.

Yeah, they are picked by the President, and the difference of A and B didn't change that. The question was about the retention of the current justices (bgwah, TJ, and windjammer).

I was referring to selection of the Chief Justice.

Ah, right, sorry, I somehow missed that in Truman's post! My bad, Governor, my bad.

Yeah, I'm with Ted and Truman in letting the President choose the Chief Justice.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #22 on: March 27, 2016, 01:48:03 AM »

I support that amendment.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2016, 04:47:36 PM »

AYE!
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 13 queries.