Confirmation Hearing: Cosmo Kramer (Attorney General)

[Q]

This hearing is called to order.

[MasterJedi]

Ah, I missed this this morning. I whole heartedly support this nomination. I know Preston can and will do the job. And, if I'm re-elected to PPT you can be assured that I will help keep him up to date with the Senate info.

[jerusalemcar5]

I believe Preston is not very personable and recently engaged in a rebellion against Atlasia.  I do not support this right now.

[MasterJedi]

I believe Preston is not very personable and recently engaged in a rebellion against Atlasia.  I do not support this right now.

He didn't support the rebellion. He raised the Southeast's troops against it.

[jerusalemcar5]

I believe Preston is not very personable and recently engaged in a rebellion against Atlasia.  I do not support this right now.

He didn't support the rebellion. He raised the Southeast's troops against it.

Hmmm... I originally thought that, but then I became confused. Alright then, strike the rebellion piece.

[Јas]

Do you advocate the theories of collective government responsibility and cabinet confidentiality?

[Democratic Hawk]

I, wholeheartedly, support Preston's nomination and will be voting to confirm him

'Hawk'

[© tweed]

What is your opinion on the legality of gay and straight sodomy?

[Virginian87]

I, wholeheartedly, support Preston's nomination and will be voting to confirm him

As will I.

[WMS]

I, wholeheartedly, support Preston's nomination and will be voting to confirm him

As will I.

Yes, no problems here either.

[Јas]

Do you advocate the theories of collective government responsibility and cabinet confidentiality?

Elaborate please.  I know you have a specific question, or one more specific than this because there would be no reason for you to ask me this question and not the other nominees.

There is no hidden agnda to the question. I'm merely asking (i) whether or not you believe that cabinet members should stand behind (and if necessary, publicly support) executive decisions? and (ii) should inter-cabinet discussions be kept confidential?

[© tweed]

What is your opinion on the legality of gay and straight sodomy?

That is not a federal issue by precendence nor should it be and therefore, with no federal laws on the books dealing with it, does not concern my department.

This answer that gay sodomy et al is not a federal issue is not entirely accurate - the federal Senate retains ultimate jurisdiction over the federal territories such as the Virgin Islands, and given its recent passage of Sex Crime legislation for these territories, there is no reason to believe it could not attempt to pass something.

[jokerman]

Do you advocate the theories of collective government responsibility and cabinet confidentiality?

Elaborate please.  I know you have a specific question, or one more specific than this because there would be no reason for you to ask me this question and not the other nominees.

There is no hidden agnda to the question. I'm merely asking (i) whether or not you believe that cabinet members should stand behind (and if necessary, publicly support) executive decisions? and (ii) should inter-cabinet discussions be kept confidential?

(i) Well, if you are talking about an executive decision, regarding the management of any particular thing, of course it is lawfully mandatory for any cabinent members to carry out that decision from the President, as he is chief magistrate.

If you are talking about executive decisions of a broader scale, such as proposals, legislation, nominees, etc.., then it depends on the degree of the issue that there is a discrepency on.

(ii) Yes, I certianly do.

[ilikeverin]

What is your opinion of current rebellion/crime law circulating?  How strictly do you see yourself prosecuting such laws?

[Ebowed]

This answer that gay sodomy et al is not a federal issue is not entirely accurate - the federal Senate retains ultimate jurisdiction over the federal territories such as the Virgin Islands, and given its recent passage of Sex Crime legislation for these territories, there is no reason to believe it could not attempt to pass something.

I believe it is the unanimous opinion of the cabinet, whether confirmed or still waiting for confirmation, that any law banning consensual sodomy between adults in the federal territories would not be a good idea.  I can certainly guarantee that under both my leadership or in my absence, under Acting President Q's leadership, such legislation would be vetoed.

[Јas]

I have a further question, if I may. It concerns the issue of EarlAW's standing in the Senate and the recent announcement of the President in that regard. You have stated:

As the Attorney General-designate I strongly support this decision and will defend it in court, if necessary, if the issue comes up.

I would much rather, however, see Earl accept the decision and peacefully leave the Senate.

Could you please summarise the legal argument which you would put before the court?

[jokerman]

I have a further question, if I may. It concerns the issue of EarlAW's standing in the Senate and the recent announcement of the President in that regard. You have stated:

As the Attorney General-designate I strongly support this decision and will defend it in court, if necessary, if the issue comes up.

I would much rather, however, see Earl accept the decision and peacefully leave the Senate.

Could you please summarise the legal argument which you would put before the court?

I'm not prepared to release that yet, as it would involve the release of confidential information relating to the treason of him.

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up the confirmation vote for Cosmo Kramer for Attorney General. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[MasterJedi]

Aye

[Јas]

I have a further question, if I may. It concerns the issue of EarlAW's standing in the Senate and the recent announcement of the President in that regard. You have stated:

As the Attorney General-designate I strongly support this decision and will defend it in court, if necessary, if the issue comes up.

I would much rather, however, see Earl accept the decision and peacefully leave the Senate.

Could you please summarise the legal argument which you would put before the court?

I'm not prepared to release that yet, as it would involve the release of confidential information relating to the treason of him.

May I ask then, is it correct to say that you believe that the President has the power to (without express reason, or the support of the Senate or court) expel a Senator at will?

[jokerman]

I have a further question, if I may. It concerns the issue of EarlAW's standing in the Senate and the recent announcement of the President in that regard. You have stated:

As the Attorney General-designate I strongly support this decision and will defend it in court, if necessary, if the issue comes up.

I would much rather, however, see Earl accept the decision and peacefully leave the Senate.

Could you please summarise the legal argument which you would put before the court?

I'm not prepared to release that yet, as it would involve the release of confidential information relating to the treason of him.

May I ask then, is it correct to say that you believe that the President has the power to (without express reason, or the support of the Senate or court) expel a Senator at will?

I believe, Senator, that that all depends on one's definition of "power."  If he wants to do it, he has the (physical) power to enforce it.  So in truth it is within his "power."

[Јas]

I have a further question, if I may. It concerns the issue of EarlAW's standing in the Senate and the recent announcement of the President in that regard. You have stated:

As the Attorney General-designate I strongly support this decision and will defend it in court, if necessary, if the issue comes up.

I would much rather, however, see Earl accept the decision and peacefully leave the Senate.

Could you please summarise the legal argument which you would put before the court?

I'm not prepared to release that yet, as it would involve the release of confidential information relating to the treason of him.

May I ask then, is it correct to say that you believe that the President has the power to (without express reason, or the support of the Senate or court) expel a Senator at will?

I believe, Senator, that that all depends on one's definition of "power."  If he wants to do it, he has the (physical) power to enforce it.  So in truth it is within his "power."

In this context, I'm referring to power as legal authority. How would that change your answer?

[Hatman 🍁]

Preston's recent actions have proven he is unfit for office, therefore I shall vote nay.

He has openly admitted to believing that the President can fire Senators, and would fight that "right" in court.

[jerusalemcar5]

Cosmo Kramer's ignorance towards the constitution does not strike me as a redeeming quality for an attorney general, supposedly one of the most knowledgeable in legal matter in the land.

Therefore:

Nay.

[jokerman]

Cosmo Kramer's ignorance towards the constitution

What?  I know quite a bit about the constitution.  It is my constitutional duty to defend atlasia, so if Ebowed',s actions are brought to court, I will have to defend them.