Possible Court Case

[True Democrat]

Now that the court has changed, I'm thinking of bringing up a case that would overturn Bono v Atlasia 2.0, but only the part about the minimum wage.  The only problem is that I have very little knowledge about how the bring up a case, how to argue a case, etc.  Can someone help me with this.  Even if a supreme court justice could explain the procedure to review a past ruling that would be great.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Now that the court has changed, I'm thinking of bringing up a case that would overturn Bono v Atlasia 2.0, but only the part about the minimum wage.  The only problem is that I have very little knowledge about how the bring up a case, how to argue a case, etc.  Can someone help me with this.  Even if a supreme court justice could explain the procedure to review a past ruling that would be great.

You have my full support, but I second the call for experienced counsel.  If only JFK would return.....

[Yates]

I would be willing to serve as your counsel.  Please contact me if you would like me to represent you in this case, and we can discuss these matters.

Yates

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I would be willing to serve as your counsel.  Please contact me if you would like me to represent you in this case, and we can discuss these matters.

Yates

Welcome to the case   We definately need a team of attorneys for this - but unfortunately our legal-eagle ranks are lacking over here on the non-libertarian side of things.

[True Democrat]

I would be willing to serve as your counsel.  Please contact me if you would like me to represent you in this case, and we can discuss these matters.

Yates

Welcome to the case   We definately need a team of attorneys for this - but unfortunately our legal-eagle ranks are lacking over here on the non-libertarian side of things.

Yeah, plus the fact that basically all the good lawyers are now on the Supreme Court.  Maybe we could get one of the regional judges.  Also, coudl a supreme court justice please explain how to file a case?

[Brandon H]

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_III_of_the_Second_Constitution
deals with the Supreme Court. However, it only covers criminal trials and does not cover challenges to existing law. This could end up being another Constititional Issue.

[Peter]

Article III, Section 2 spells out procedural safeguards for criminal defendents, rather than necessarily dictating a procedure, though more procedure has been fleshed out by statute.

Challenges to statute have been generally dealt with by whatever procedures the sitting Court has been willing to allow them to be challenged under. My general feeling is to keep with what we've had to a large degree to ensure continuity, though I am going to make a few changes in the margins.

In declaring your intent to sue, you should start a thread in the government board with a case title. In your case this should be True Independent v. Atlasia. Since you are trying to overturn a previous decision, your stated goal should be to have the Fair Wage Act (or whatever it was called) enforced. If you wish to nominate counsel, you should do so.

Previously, you have not been required to submit any legal argument at that stage. I have decided to change this: You will be asked to submit a synopsis of your legal arguments, as will the defence, so that we are able to have some time to consider arguments before oral arguments.

At some point, hopefully not too long a period of time, we will then hold oral arguments in an AIM/ICQ chatroom or similar where you or your counsel will get cross-examined by the Court on the basis of your earlier submissions.

Once thats done, the Justices will discuss the case, and then hopefully construct a majority, and an opinion.

I'm not sure who would want to defend this case: The government is the stated defendent (because it would be TIs assertion that they are failing to enforce a valid law), but I'm not going to hold them under an obligation to defend this, just as the United States didn't defend Dickerson. Bono might want to defend this, which I will accomodate as an amicii. Anybody else who wants to, can file amicii submissions.

[An amicii submission is a "friend of the court" submission -  a third party to the case who wishes to make some input to the case, but is not directly affected]

[True Democrat]

I would be willing to serve as your counsel.  Please contact me if you would like me to represent you in this case, and we can discuss these matters.

Yates

Your help would be much appreciated.  I'm sure you would make a great lawyer, however I'm looking for someone who was in Atlasia when the original ruling was made.  This way they have a good background of the case.  I'm sorry if I've offended you by this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Are you challenging this based on the more-than-ever-so-slightly-dubious definition of what work/labor/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is, used in the ruling?

[True Democrat]

Are you challenging this based on the more-than-ever-so-slightly-dubious definition of what work/labor/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is, used in the ruling?

I think so. . .

[Bono]

Article III, Section 2 spells out procedural safeguards for criminal defendents, rather than necessarily dictating a procedure, though more procedure has been fleshed out by statute.

Challenges to statute have been generally dealt with by whatever procedures the sitting Court has been willing to allow them to be challenged under. My general feeling is to keep with what we've had to a large degree to ensure continuity, though I am going to make a few changes in the margins.

In declaring your intent to sue, you should start a thread in the government board with a case title. In your case this should be True Independent v. Atlasia. Since you are trying to overturn a previous decision, your stated goal should be to have the Fair Wage Act (or whatever it was called) enforced. If you wish to nominate counsel, you should do so.

Previously, you have not been required to submit any legal argument at that stage. I have decided to change this: You will be asked to submit a synopsis of your legal arguments, as will the defence, so that we are able to have some time to consider arguments before oral arguments.

At some point, hopefully not too long a period of time, we will then hold oral arguments in an AIM/ICQ chatroom or similar where you or your counsel will get cross-examined by the Court on the basis of your earlier submissions.

Once thats done, the Justices will discuss the case, and then hopefully construct a majority, and an opinion.

I'm not sure who would want to defend this case: The government is the stated defendent (because it would be TIs assertion that they are failing to enforce a valid law), but I'm not going to hold them under an obligation to defend this, just as the United States didn't defend Dickerson. Bono might want to defend this, which I will accomodate as an amicii. Anybody else who wants to, can file amicii submissions.

[An amicii submission is a "friend of the court" submission -  a third party to the case who wishes to make some input to the case, but is not directly affected]

There is no point in doing that with this court. Have your socialism.

[Yates]

I would be willing to serve as your counsel.  Please contact me if you would like me to represent you in this case, and we can discuss these matters.

Yates

Your help would be much appreciated.  I'm sure you would make a great lawyer, however I'm looking for someone who was in Atlasia when the original ruling was made.  This way they have a good background of the case.  I'm sorry if I've offended you by this.

I understand.

[Ebowed]

You have my full support, but I second the call for experienced counsel.  If only JFK would return.....

John F. Kennedy ruled in favor of Bono in the original case.

[Bono]

Fine I'll argue it anyways but I do so without any hope of sucess, but I would like to make a record of my oposition to allowing the AG not to argue the case.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

You have my full support, but I second the call for experienced counsel.  If only JFK would return.....

John F. Kennedy ruled in favor of Bono in the original case.

Hmm, I thought better of him than that.

[KEmperor]

You have my full support, but I second the call for experienced counsel.  If only JFK would return.....

John F. Kennedy ruled in favor of Bono in the original case.

Hmm, I thought better of him than that.

JFK actually read what the Constitution said, and ruled accordingly.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

You have my full support, but I second the call for experienced counsel.  If only JFK would return.....

John F. Kennedy ruled in favor of Bono in the original case.

Hmm, I thought better of him than that.

JFK actually read what the Constitution said, and ruled accordingly.

He violated the will of the people and doomed many Atlasian families to poverty.

[KEmperor]

You have my full support, but I second the call for experienced counsel.  If only JFK would return.....

John F. Kennedy ruled in favor of Bono in the original case.

Hmm, I thought better of him than that.

JFK actually read what the Constitution said, and ruled accordingly.

He violated the will of the people and doomed many Atlasian families to poverty.

The "will of the people" has nothing to do with whether the Constitution allows the federal government to do something or not.  If we wanted to just have a straight up tyranny of the majority, we wouldn't have written one.

Deciding a court case is not about what is popular, but what is legally sound.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

You have my full support, but I second the call for experienced counsel.  If only JFK would return.....

John F. Kennedy ruled in favor of Bono in the original case.

Hmm, I thought better of him than that.

JFK actually read what the Constitution said, and ruled accordingly.

He violated the will of the people and doomed many Atlasian families to poverty.

The "will of the people" has nothing to do with whether the Constitution allows the federal government to do something or not.  If we wanted to just have a straight up tyranny of the majority, we wouldn't have written one.

Deciding a court case is not about what is popular, but what is legally sound.

If the Constitution is going to be used as a weapon against the poor, then perhaps we have some very serious problems in our Constitution.  I think it is incumbent upon our judges to protect Atlasians and their rights and find every possible interpretation of the Constitution that would allow those rights to be protected.

[KEmperor]

You have my full support, but I second the call for experienced counsel.  If only JFK would return.....

John F. Kennedy ruled in favor of Bono in the original case.

Hmm, I thought better of him than that.

JFK actually read what the Constitution said, and ruled accordingly.

He violated the will of the people and doomed many Atlasian families to poverty.

The "will of the people" has nothing to do with whether the Constitution allows the federal government to do something or not.  If we wanted to just have a straight up tyranny of the majority, we wouldn't have written one.

Deciding a court case is not about what is popular, but what is legally sound.

If the Constitution is going to be used as a weapon against the poor, then perhaps we have some very serious problems in our Constitution.  I think it is incumbent upon our judges to protect Atlasians and their rights and find every possible interpretation of the Constitution that would allow those rights to be protected.

No where in the bill of rights does it discuss wages.

Anyway, political considerations are immaterial.

[Brandon H]

Fine I'll argue it anyways but I do so without any hope of sucess, but I would like to make a record of my oposition to allowing the AG not to argue the case.

As Peter Bell said the government will not be defending the case. However, as the legal representative for the Atlasian Government I do intend to file an amicus brief for the case on behalf of he government.