SB 2017-121: Nonpartisan Judiciary Amendment (Rejected)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: ZuWo

I hereby open the floor for debate.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

24 hours to advocate, ZuWo!

[ZuWo]

In short, I believe this amendment will help to preserve the reputation of the Supreme Court as well as ensure that decisions by the court always have the highest visible degree of impartiality as possible. I vividly remember when Oakvale was a Supreme Court Justice while simultaneously serving as chairman of the People's Party, which at the time drew a lot of criticism from the left.

I am aware of the main argument against the amendment in question; an Atlasian could be a Supreme Court Justice and call the shots in a political party even without formally serving in any partisan position. However, I think that the benefits of such an amendment outweigh this potential loophole.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I like the proposal. The title reminds me of an idea I have been entertaining to take the selection of the judiciary out of the hands of elected officials (who have partisan interests) entirely, though I don't know how that could be implemented. Reducing the capacity for partisanship to affect the Supreme Court in general is a noble goal.

     My only concern is that we may be restricting the actions of political parties more than we should in doing this.

[windjammer]

Alright,

Believe me or not but I totally agree with the spirit of this legislation. I indeed believe that Supreme Court Justices should avoid being involved in party stuff.

I suppose you will ask me why if I'm opposed to that I chose to become Chair of the Labor Party? The reason is simple, I believed that had the Labor Party collapse, the game would have collapsed too as it would have been replaced by a party cult like TPP and we would have gotten cringeworthy elections like Bore vs Matt where a literal trotskyst almost defeated the most respected labor senator at this time because he "wasn't labor" even if he literally supported the legalization of incest, and was expelled by the assembly because of gross inactivity. Anyway, the debate isn"t about how some rightwing voters can have no shame at all. But the risk of a two parties system with one being totally party cult if the Labor Party or the Federalist Party collapses, is indeed *real*. The temporary alliance of the major leftwing party and of the major rightwing party was needed last time to defeat a such party cult.

So this is why I temporary became Labor chairman to fix Labor and to prevent it from falling, and so in fine to prevent the game from falling after the creation of a massive party cult party. I do agree with the "spirit" of this legislation. Yes, Supreme Court justices shouldn't be involved in any parties under normal circunmstance. This is why I resifned as chair as soon as I could.

However, seriously, do you really believe that this legislation would stop Justices to do some party stuff? Hahahahaha, of course not. You don't need to be elected Chair if you want to be active in a party. So I don't understand the goal of this amendment, as it would basically change *nothing* in term of limiting the potential role of SC justices into a party.

And finally, there is an another problem with the current supreme court and all the former ones, it's that the Supreme Court Justices are not particularly active as they have for the most them decided to retire, and that is their right. And I believe that potential SC's inactivity is a far bigger problem than *forbidding* supreme court justices of being elected at some party positions (which by the way wouldn't fulfil the intentional goal of passing a such measure), this legislation would remind the Justices even more than inactivity is fine.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With deepest respect to the honorable senator, I'm afraid I don't see what it is this bill attempts to "solve," or how it would bear any practical effect on the function of the federal judiciary. The proposed amendment is not unlike Rosecrans strategy at Chickamaugua: it attempts to solve a problem that does not exist and, in doing so, creates a compromising hole in our constitutional framework.

In the course of the last year, we have seen two respected justices of the Supreme Court serve as chairs of their respective parties without compromising the integrity either of the court or the political process. I can hardly believe that either Windjammer or Yankee did disservice to our republic by declining to resign from the bench during their tenures, not do I think "criticism from the left" is sufficient reason to par justices from holding party office. Further, as Windjammer said, this amendment is completely unenforceable; it would prevent justices only from taking the title of chair while doing absolutely nothing to stop them from directing party strategy in an unofficial capacity. That is more than a loophole; it is a gaping breech in the premise of this amendment, in effect proposing a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for party politics.

This is a bad idea that would accomplish nothing more than providing yet another stick of kindling for the partisan flamewars that break out on IRC every election, and I strongly recommend its rejection to the Senate.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm going to have to agree with Chief Justice windjammer and Prime Minister Truman on this.  This amendment seeks to solve a problem that doesn't exist and it is also impractical, given the nature of the game, to attempt to regulate judges' political activities.  If a case were brought to the court that brought any conflict of interest between a certain judge and a party they controlled, they would already be under the strong obligation to recuse themselves.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would note that during my tenure as Supreme Court Justice, I went through my worst activity rut in the game. This was caused by many issues, though one of the many factors was a desire to take a step back motivated in part by a desire to avoid a compromising situation and give breathing space for Leinad, Tmth and Clark to govern. Needless to say the last portion was misguided and led to disaster but real life demands also made it unavoidable anyway.


Of course towards the latter part of that tenure I found myself running for President, while also having a hurricane strike NC, the election itself, the turmoil afterwards etc etc. Good Times!


During the process I accidentally stumbled into having a situation with myself as Justice and my VP candidate as SoFE. While nothing wrong occurred, faith in the system is essential for its preservation and while we did nothing wrong that is not a assurance that in a future someone in a similar position will be likewise reasonable and honest.

Perhaps there are ways to address the matter other than what is proposed, but I think it is reasonable to have the discussion.

[ZuWo]

As I posted in my opening statement I realize that the amendment in question has a loophole.

However, I disagree with those who say that the amendment seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. Indeed, the mere semblance of political bias, which undeniably exists when a party leader/Supreme Court justice deals with a court case involving a member of his party or a poster he clearly dislikes, is a problem. As I pointed out, Supreme Court justices were criticized in the past for precisely that reason, and there must be a way for us to address it.

[Lambsbread]

Sorry for not chiming in on this, RL has been rough this past week.

I agree with my colleague from Lincoln. There is no real issue here that imminently needs to be addressed. Preemptive solutions almost always end up with limited results. I won't support this legislation as it stands.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sorry for not chiming in on this, RL has been rough this past week.

I agree with my colleague from Lincoln. There is no real issue here that imminently needs to be addressed. Preemptive solutions almost always end up with limited results. I won't support this legislation as it stands.

Does that imply you would support something else?

[Lambsbread]

Sorry for not chiming in on this, RL has been rough this past week.

I agree with my colleague from Lincoln. There is no real issue here that imminently needs to be addressed. Preemptive solutions almost always end up with limited results. I won't support this legislation as it stands.

Does that imply you would support something else?

I would feasibly support anything I don't support if it existed in a different incarnation.

[ZuWo]

I don't think this has enough support so we might as well have a final vote soon.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Okay, we'll get this moving.

Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay.

[ZuWo]

Aye

[Lambsbread]

Nay

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Nay

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This amendment lacks the sufficient number of votes to pass.  Senators have 24 hours to change their vote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

With two votes in favor to three against, the amendment is rejected.