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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:18:29 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 22480 times)
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« on: February 20, 2016, 07:16:33 PM »

Oh: now the fun begins.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2016, 02:27:41 AM »

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.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2016, 01:04:32 AM »

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.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2016, 04:00:46 PM »

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.)?

I mean, it's possible for instance that we decide to go with a revolving court of sorts. Maybe something where we treat the judiciary like we would a jury and random people are selected from a (pre-confirmed) pool of a dozen or so judges. I don't know.

These are not preferred ideas from me by any means and I imagine they won't be popular regardless, but I have no idea what/if other people are considering radical changes to the courts in terms of its basic existence. My point was that we may be taking for granted the notion that we'll have a court that effectively functions as it does today when we start the debate. However, if nobody else is going to offer amendments or ideas for how it should be different, then I have no objections with us proceeding along these basic, defined lines.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2016, 01:05:02 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2016, 09:57:40 PM »

I tend to agree on the balance of power thing. I wish it weren't that way, because I really like bore's idea - especially how it eliminates additional offices in effect.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2016, 06:32:15 PM »

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.

If we do end up going this route, though, then the notion of separate regional CJOs needs to be axed.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2016, 01:00:42 AM »

[1] Status Quo
[2] Plan "A"
[3] Plan "C"
[4] Plan "B"
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2016, 09:48:33 PM »

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?
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2016, 06:39:53 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.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2016, 06:54:01 AM »

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.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2016, 03:34:43 AM »

What on earth are these plans? Just keep the status quo. I think the court is the least of our problems. Besides, picking a nominee is loads of fun, especially when neither side likes your pick Cheesy

As usual, I shouldn't have opened my big, fat mouth. This is all my fault. Wink
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2016, 03:43:20 AM »

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!

Either I'm completely misunderstanding what you are saying, or...what?


OFFICIAL BALLOT
Principle Vote on Presidential Powers

The President shall have the power...

4. To appoint the justices of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate
[   ] AYE    [   ] NAY    [   ] Abstain

RESULTS
Principle Vote on Presidential Powers

The President shall have the power...

4. To appoint the justices of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate
PASSED (18 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions)

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.

As far as I'm concerned and if we had an iron fist ruling this convention based on the parameters we have agreed to prior, then the last vote would be ruled null and void because it is inconsistent with a firm principle vote that we have already held. You don't have to straw-man with the "status quo" argument, because it's an irrelevant one: not only was it I who brought up the notion of exploring this kind of stuff in the first place (truly, I am always the trailblazer), but there are (were?) plenty of creative possibilities that don't revolve around taking the power of appointing Supreme Court Justices away from the Executive Branch.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2016, 07:14:17 PM »

I have no objections to this.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2016, 10:03:19 PM »

[1] Plan A
[2] Plan B
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2016, 06:03:16 AM »

I just...don't like where the court is headed

Yeah, me either, but of all of those options presented, I feel like Plan A was the least bad.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #16 on: March 24, 2016, 08:23:00 PM »

The argument in part is that it consolidates offices: each of the three Justices from the Regions also serves as their CJO. This convention - due entirely to the time in which it was originated based on the voter rolls - has increasingly encroached more and more upon federal powers by expanding regional influence above and beyond what is necessary or prudent. I've tried time and time again to make the point that the Regions are why we're here in the first place: they are not healthy nor highly-functional laboratories in this game. They are mostly a liability and their lack of functionality is why we needed a new game.

My goal for this ConCon was to reduce the amount of damage they could do to the game, not expand it. This convention has thwarted that goal at almost every turn. I have resigned myself to the fact that this convention won't produce "the game to end all games" and that future generations of Atlasians will find themselves facing some of the same problems that we have been facing because we didn't get it 100% right.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2016, 05:01:54 PM »

Aye guess
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 0.036 seconds with 13 queries.