SR 113-24: Judicial Reform Amendment (Passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:31:46 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 (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SR 113-24: Judicial Reform Amendment (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
Author Topic: SR 113-24: Judicial Reform Amendment (Passed)  (Read 3471 times)
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: January 29, 2023, 12:09:15 PM »

No active players are interested in this kind of position, it's a fact. Very often a struggle.to fill a Seat.

There were various points in the game's past where I would have dropped everything to be on the court. I even once joked to WD that Labor messed up by not sticking me on the court to get rid of me. Now, I dont at this present time wish to be on the court because theres too much policywise Id like to accomplish first. But just repeating "no one else would do it" doesnt seem to be accurate. A certainly saying "no one else in 2016 would do it" doesnt make that true now.

Theres possibly lots we could do to tease out potentially intetested justices, but there wont be much vocalization when 80% of the court hasnt been available to new players in like 6 years.
I have dealt with 5-6 vacancies in the last few years. And every Time there was close to no candidate.


Frankly if you're so sure about your claim. Considering you want to remove 4 justices from the bench. Who would be your 4 replacements?
Logged
Sestak
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,268
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: January 29, 2023, 12:14:30 PM »

Term limits are neutral. They are certain. They apply to everyone.

This is a bit rich; arranging for the creation of four vacancies to be filled by your own party during its strongest federal hegemony in five years is hardly ‘neutral’.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: January 29, 2023, 12:27:59 PM »

Term limits are neutral. They are certain. They apply to everyone.

This is a bit rich; arranging for the creation of four vacancies to be filled by your own party during its strongest federal hegemony in five years is hardly ‘neutral’.

1. Peace is doing well, but im not sure if its the strongest its ever been.

2. Weve already been discussing staggered expiration of terms by the justices who should have retired years and years ago so it wouldnt all occur at once.

3. 50% of the seats that term out would be Regionally based.

4. The same logic applies to leaving in place a majority of a court from 7 years ago in a completely different game era.

5. And again, there wouldnt have to be 4 vacancies if there was healthier turnover on the court instead of 4 justices with 5 or more consecurive years tenure.

6. I dont see how the mere possibility of court not being slanted in your party's favor after 7 years is supposed to make me the partisan.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: January 29, 2023, 12:29:30 PM »

Term limits are neutral. They are certain. They apply to everyone.

This is a bit rich; arranging for the creation of four vacancies to be filled by your own party during its strongest federal hegemony in five years is hardly ‘neutral’.

1. Peace is doing well, but im not sure if its the strongest its ever been.

2. Weve already been discussing staggered expiration of terms by the justices who should have retired years and years ago so it wouldnt all occur at once.

3. 50% of the seats that term out would be Regionally based.

4. The same logic applies to leaving in place a majority of a court from 7 years ago in a completely different game era.

5. And again, there wouldnt have to be 4 vacancies if there was healthier turnover on the court instead of 4 justices with 5 or more consecurive years tenure.

6. I dont see how the mere possibility of court not being slanted in your party's favor after 7 years is supposed to make me the partisan.
Please explain how the Supreme court has benefited labor.

And please find me the famous 4 replacements
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: January 29, 2023, 02:48:15 PM »

Term limits are neutral. They are certain. They apply to everyone.

This is a bit rich; arranging for the creation of four vacancies to be filled by your own party during its strongest federal hegemony in five years is hardly ‘neutral’.

1. Peace is doing well, but im not sure if its the strongest its ever been.

2. Weve already been discussing staggered expiration of terms by the justices who should have retired years and years ago so it wouldnt all occur at once.

3. 50% of the seats that term out would be Regionally based.

4. The same logic applies to leaving in place a majority of a court from 7 years ago in a completely different game era.

5. And again, there wouldnt have to be 4 vacancies if there was healthier turnover on the court instead of 4 justices with 5 or more consecurive years tenure.

6. I dont see how the mere possibility of court not being slanted in your party's favor after 7 years is supposed to make me the partisan.
Please explain how the Supreme court has benefited labor.

See now you are just being deliberately bad-faith and confrontational.

Im gonna respond and then Im done trying to negotiate with judges who are supposedly not political actors and who claim to be perplexed that anyone could think holding the same unelected job in the Atlasia game for seven years is bad sportsmanship that hurts the fun of the game.

Weve been over this. Repeatedly. For more than a week. I literally said above and in the other thread and last week that I think serving forever in a position is bad in a game regardless of party and you and sestak just keep harping on how Im only saying that because I am a bad guy. Im a partisan. Its all some nefarious plot by me. Do you really not see that there is a broad coalition who are tired of justices camping in the seat forever? IRL the progressives are all about judicial term limits. But since the game is stacked in favor of the class of 2016 now this can never, ever, ever change? I quit the game for almost 2 years and the composition of the court was identical when I came back. There were 6 presidential terms during that same time. You personally have been on the court for more than 20 presidential terms. I really dont see the point in continuing to engage with you on this if you just cant understand that that is not fun for anyone but you.

Plus, on partisanship ... Yall literally breached decorum to interject yourself into a political discussion about a constitutional amendment that would still have to get voted on by the Senate and the people. I dont know how frequently the justices just decide to become partisan actors like this, but its infrequent enough that it is noteworthy (and not in a flattering way). This week, you were talking about drafting an amendment to a Senate proposal while sitting on the court. You and Sestak are demanding the Senate kill a resolution on the floor. Like, how is that not the court interjecting itself into politics when it shouldnt? How is that not politicizing the court?

So if yall get to impugn me and castigate any discussion of judicial reform as "partisan" I dont think its unfair to view yalls opposition with some cynicism. Like, weve set up an open process. Its being debated in the Senate. Weve considered amendments. We are still discussing amendments. We are trying to craft a plan that incorporates all views. Whatever is going to pass has to have 12 votes and 2 regions. And like, that still wasnt enough for you. You still came in, became political, accused several of us of being bad and dishonest and all sort of other negative things to try and kill a policy you dont like and Im done.

I dont think the concerns you raised are nearly as serious or as accurate as you believe. Weve gone over and over and over the same points. And its just like you want to continue in and endless cycle (kind of like your term) until what? We say, "oh Windjammer you are so right and noble. please remain on the court another seven years."

In summary.

I think there should term limits in a game like this. You think you should be able to serve until 2099 or the next reboot.

I think term limits are a neutral way to keep the Court non-partisan. You think keeping the existing partisan makeup of the court forever will keep the Court non-partisan.

I think if players knew court openings were possible, that you could find replacements. You think that since no other Labor Party members wanted the job in 2016, therefore no one else will ever take the job ever.

And with that, Im done engaging with judges who think they are senators. Maybe you should resign and run for the senate on this political issue if it means that much to you. Youd probably have a decent shot of getting elected.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: January 29, 2023, 03:25:56 PM »

Here’s some reforms I’d be willing to Introduce as amendments :

1. Terms are automatically renewed if the rest of the court agrees

2. A bipartisan panel is appointed to see is judges should be reappointed (so the top 2 parties in the last election get 3 choices each)

Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: January 29, 2023, 03:38:43 PM »

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA the judges are being partisan because they participate in the senate thread discussion warning that the legislation being debated could screw up the independence of justice.

You're using some absurd and sophistic argument to avoid answering my points. That's really sad.

In the end, you don't adress my point that you intend to make vacant 4 positions in this game for positions no one wants in a game facing right now an activity crisis
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: January 29, 2023, 04:00:14 PM »

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA the judges are being partisan because they participate in the senate thread discussion warning that the legislation being debated could screw up the independence of justice.

You're using some absurd and sophistic argument to avoid answering my points. That's really sad.

In the end, you don't adress my point that you intend to make vacant 4 positions in this game for positions no one wants in a game facing right now an activity crisis

What do you think about my two proposals
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: January 29, 2023, 04:52:48 PM »

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA the judges are being partisan because they participate in the senate thread discussion warning that the legislation being debated could screw up the independence of justice.

You're using some absurd and sophistic argument to avoid answering my points. That's really sad.

In the end, you don't adress my point that you intend to make vacant 4 positions in this game for positions no one wants in a game facing right now an activity crisis

What do you think about my two proposals
Could you please elaborate point 1 please?

As for point 2, I understand you want to create a commission right? Who would be part of it?
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: January 29, 2023, 05:04:54 PM »



When Sestak was appointed, there were only two candidates and one immediately left the forum.

We cycled through 3 names that appointment.

First was Kaiser, who did not have the votes to be confirmed
Second was RPryor, who essentially was blocked by you.
Then Sestak got through.

I also passed about 5 other names to Tack between the first two nominations, who did not end up having to be pursued but I believe would have served if necessary.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: January 29, 2023, 05:15:18 PM »



When Sestak was appointed, there were only two candidates and one immediately left the forum.

We cycled through 3 names that appointment.

First was Kaiser, who did not have the votes to be confirmed
Second was RPryor, who essentially was blocked by you.
Then Sestak got through.

I also passed about 5 other names to Tack between the first two nominations, who did not end up having to be pursued but I believe would have served if necessary.

I havent asked any of these people, but just in the South as far as active enough posters with either a legal or professional background who could possibly be interested in a Supreme Court appointment, I can think of like 10 off the top of my head. But other than Tim, none are in Labor so Im sure the other 9 would be hand-waved away as "no one is interested".
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: January 29, 2023, 05:45:57 PM »



When Sestak was appointed, there were only two candidates and one immediately left the forum.

We cycled through 3 names that appointment.

First was Kaiser, who did not have the votes to be confirmed
Second was RPryor, who essentially was blocked by you.
Then Sestak got through.

I also passed about 5 other names to Tack between the first two nominations, who did not end up having to be pursued but I believe would have served if necessary.

I havent asked any of these people, but just in the South as far as active enough posters with either a legal or professional background who could possibly be interested in a Supreme Court appointment, I can think of like 10 off the top of my head. But other than Tim, none are in Labor so Im sure the other 9 would be hand-waved away as "no one is interested".
Honestly I heavily lobbied for Pit to be nominated Southern Associate Justice while initially the current governor back during this Time wanted to appoint more progressive justices like TexasGirl.


Seriously why do you constantly lie and make false assumptions?


And please go ahead I would love to hear the famous ten nominees you are looking for
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: January 29, 2023, 06:27:41 PM »

List of Names I sent to Tack when it was clear Kaiser was going down:

Quote
There's a bunch of people who I could see working as a Supreme Court Nominee, who don't have ethical or activity issues to my knowledge:

RPryor03 (just moved to Lincoln)
DPKDebator (Not the most liberal guy, but he did vote for you)
Poirot
Badger
Torie
Bruhgmger2
Adam Griffin (if he still cares about the game)


Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: January 29, 2023, 06:49:14 PM »

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA the judges are being partisan because they participate in the senate thread discussion warning that the legislation being debated could screw up the independence of justice.

You're using some absurd and sophistic argument to avoid answering my points. That's really sad.

In the end, you don't adress my point that you intend to make vacant 4 positions in this game for positions no one wants in a game facing right now an activity crisis

What do you think about my two proposals
Could you please elaborate point 1 please?

As for point 2, I understand you want to create a commission right? Who would be part of it?

The top 2 parties would get to choose 3 people each
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: January 29, 2023, 07:10:43 PM »

Term limits are happening regardless, there are probably 14 votes for that. People just want turnover and it's going to happen.

However, Windjammer, if there is truly a concern about the partisan nature of this, here is an idea. For replacing the two national justices (assuming both fail reconfirmation), one is selected by Labor and one is selected by Peace or Federalists. Both sides agree to confirm the other's nominee. Then adding in the Regional appointments, the Court remains a Leftist Court, 3-2, until at least Sestak's expiration (not until Oct. '24), maybe even later.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: January 30, 2023, 12:37:40 PM »

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA the judges are being partisan because they participate in the senate thread discussion warning that the legislation being debated could screw up the independence of justice.

You're using
 some absurd and sophistic argument to avoid answering my points. That's really sad.

In the end, you don't adress my point that you intend to make vacant 4 positions in this game for positions no one wants in a game facing right now an activity crisis

What do you think about my two proposals
Could you please elaborate point 1 please?

As for point 2, I understand you want to create a commission right? Who would be part of it?

The top 2 parties would get to choose 3 people each
Could you please explain me the purpose of this reform?

Is there something you don't like about the current supreme court and think that could be improved?
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: January 30, 2023, 12:39:02 PM »

Term limits are happening regardless, there are probably 14 votes for that. People just want turnover and it's going to happen.

However, Windjammer, if there is truly a concern about the partisan nature of this, here is an idea. For replacing the two national justices (assuming both fail reconfirmation), one is selected by Labor and one is selected by Peace or Federalists. Both sides agree to confirm the other's nominee. Then adding in the Regional appointments, the Court remains a Leftist Court, 3-2, until at least Sestak's expiration (not until Oct. '24), maybe even later.

Wulfric,
I have nothing against the feds appointing Justices. After all I heavily supported the nomination and confirmation of Pit.

What is bugging me it is that the senate would have some regards on the Supreme Court's decisions. Being a judge isn't about a political ideology, it's about granting fair verdicts in a nonpartisan way.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: January 31, 2023, 09:27:52 PM »
« Edited: January 31, 2023, 09:46:08 PM by Associate Justice PiT »

     Having worked with Chief Justice Windjammer since my confirmation nearly five years ago, I can vouch that he is far from being a lefty hack. I've been quite pleased with his independent-mindedness and commitment to seriously applying judicial principles on the bench. If I and the other justices don't write more dissents, it is because few cases come up in our docket and of those cases we are able to reach a consensus on most of them. Contrary to what it may seem like in public, Supreme Court discussions are quite lively and not just the Chief Justice dictating the opinion to us.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: February 02, 2023, 04:08:36 PM »

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA the judges are being partisan because they participate in the senate thread discussion warning that the legislation being debated could screw up the independence of justice.

You're using
 some absurd and sophistic argument to avoid answering my points. That's really sad.

In the end, you don't adress my point that you intend to make vacant 4 positions in this game for positions no one wants in a game facing right now an activity crisis

What do you think about my two proposals
Could you please elaborate point 1 please?

As for point 2, I understand you want to create a commission right? Who would be part of it?

The top 2 parties would get to choose 3 people each
Could you please explain me the purpose of this reform?

Is there something you don't like about the current supreme court and think that could be improved?
Hey,
Could you please look at my message? 😀
Thanks!
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: February 07, 2023, 03:43:54 PM »

Uh bump?
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: February 11, 2023, 06:43:56 AM »

I will see if I can find a consensus plan soon.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: February 11, 2023, 02:31:03 PM »

I'm just going to reiterate that anything regarding "terms" is a very bad idea if you want to preserve the independence of the supreme court.

Let's be honest, it's obvious most active people don't know how the supreme court works and I don't blame them because after all the interactions between the justices are private.

So if most active players don't know how the supreme court works, considering this game that is 75% "zombie" players (they only vote for whoever the political machine boss), how these "retention elections" as they are written wouldn"t end up into some partisan elections?


You all  know pericles. If for example Pit was the Chief Justice and was up for reelection, you really don't think that there wouldn't be a PM campaign waged against him to remove him from office?

Logged
GM Team Member and Senator WB
weatherboy1102
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,629
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -7.83

P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: February 16, 2023, 11:10:30 PM »

In the end, if even PiT is seemingly against this, I don't think we should go forward.
Logged
West_Midlander
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: 1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: February 17, 2023, 02:41:16 AM »

Motion to table.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: February 17, 2023, 01:01:29 PM »

Personally I don't think there'd be any circumstance where a sitting justice would be publicly in favor of this. Job Preservation above all else is how people typically act. If we wait for a sitting justice to say they're in favor, we'll be waiting the rest of our lives no matter what.

As far as campaigning for elections goes, it's part of the game, and part of life. That argument doesn't seem to have swayed the majority of RL states against holding judicial elections. Heck, forget retention elections, plenty of RL states have full fledged elections, many of which are even with party identification listed, something that is not even being proposed here. The retention elections have already been set to a month with existing elections so they do not add to burnout or even create more PMs - same amount of PMs, just a bit more content. That being said, if the elections are the big issue, I would still think it worthwhile to strike retention elections from the document and pass the rest of the reforms noted.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8  
« previous next »
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 0.063 seconds with 12 queries.