SR 113-24: Judicial Reform Amendment (Passed)

[windjammer]

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.

It's insane to see how you have a such low view of Associate Justice Pit.

You have been saying he's basically mu sycophant who absolutely wants to keep his job and this is why he would be so partial regarding these efforts.


Pit is actually a distinguished member of this forum, he can have his own opinions and he's like 30-35 years so he has other things to do than trying to hold a seat on a ing politicial simulation where there is at best a trial every month.

Dear god, when are you going to stop talking about things you have absolutely no clue about?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

It's insane to see how you have a such low view of Associate Justice Pit.

You have been saying he's basically mu sycophant who absolutely wants to keep his job and this is why he would be so partial regarding these efforts.


Pit is actually a distinguished member of this forum, he can have his own opinions and he's like 30-35 years so he has other things to do than trying to hold a seat on a ing politicial simulation where there is at best a trial every month.

Dear god, when are you going to stop talking about things you have absolutely no clue about?

Not referring to your influence or lack thereof, referring to job preservation desires in and of themselves. Politicians supporting reforms that could harm their own personal standings is simply not something that is typically seen. Furthermore, camaderie among judges, even when they do differ strongly on decisions, is extraordinarily common  - just consider how Ginsburg and Scalia were friends.

My point is, if people are waiting for a day when a sitting judge supports this, they'll be waiting forever, even if you leave the court one day.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I think a 5 year term limit is reasonable. Thats 15 presidential terms.

[windjammer]

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.

It's insane to see how you have a such low view of Associate Justice Pit.

You have been saying he's basically mu sycophant who absolutely wants to keep his job and this is why he would be so partial regarding these efforts.


Pit is actually a distinguished member of this forum, he can have his own opinions and he's like 30-35 years so he has other things to do than trying to hold a seat on a ing politicial simulation where there is at best a trial every month.

Dear god, when are you going to stop talking about things you have absolutely no clue about?

Not referring to your influence or lack thereof, referring to job preservation desires in and of themselves. Politicians supporting reforms that could harm their own personal standings is simply not something that is typically seen. Furthermore, camaderie among judges, even when they do differ strongly on decisions, is extraordinarily common  - just consider how Ginsburg and Scalia were friends.

My point is, if people are waiting for a day when a sitting judge supports this, they'll be waiting forever, even if you leave the court one day.

Well in the end it has been particularly annoying how you have been saying bad things about him while not knowing at all the situation.

And seriously, most people on the bench are retired atlasian politicians. We all have a life outside atlasia and we barely follow what is going on on this simulation.

[windjammer]

I think a 5 year term limit is reasonable. Thats 15 presidential terms.

The problem with term limits it is that you fundamentally transform it into an elected office as winning some presidential election would give them a reward of appointing a justice.

The outcome of the rulings shouldn't be based on the partisan affiliation of who appointed the justice.

Say whatever you want about me or my colleagues but the supreme court as it is today is nonpolitical. The outcome of a ruling isn't based on the partisan affiliation or we used to have.

[windjammer]

I think a 5 year term limit is reasonable. Thats 15 presidential terms.

The problem with term limits it is that you fundamentally transform it into an elected office as winning some presidential election would give them a reward of appointing a justice.

The outcome of the rulings shouldn't be based on the partisan affiliation of who appointed the justice.

Say whatever you want about me or my colleagues but the supreme court as it is today is nonpolitical. The outcome of a ruling isn't based on the partisan affiliation or we used to have.

And additionnally,

My fundamental opposition to term limits aside. Atlasia is a game that has been struggling to have enough people holding an office. We reduced the number of regions from 5 to 3 because of that.

The position of supreme court justice doesn't attract active people. No active people would want to have a ruling every 6 months to do. It's fundamentally a position for people who want to retire from atlasian politics.

It is difficult to find candidates to this kind of positions. Every vacancy I had to deal with was a mess for the number of candidates.

It is going to cause a problem to open instantly 3 vacancies while it is already difficult to find candidates for the most "interesting" seats like senators etc today.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I think a 5 year term limit is reasonable. Thats 15 presidential terms.

The problem with term limits it is that you fundamentally transform it into an elected office as winning some presidential election would give them a reward of appointing a justice.

The outcome of the rulings shouldn't be based on the partisan affiliation of who appointed the justice.

Say whatever you want about me or my colleagues but the supreme court as it is today is nonpolitical. The outcome of a ruling isn't based on the partisan affiliation or we used to have.

Seriously dude, repeating this nonsense does not make it true. You are not some special paragon of virtue. "Oh no saying I personally cant do this forever is political." How is a 5 year term limit any less political than you retiring? Are you really going to pretend that 73 years from now if you decide to retire it wont be under a Labor President with a Labor Senate?

Like you are literally arguing to be an unelected king forever or else thats somehow political. Frankly the fact that you are so hostile to even a 5 year term limit in a game that measures all other terms in months is just more proof we need reform. No one should have a permanent job in this game. No one. Claiming otherwise is itself political.

Seriously a five year term is a huge compromise on this issue. I really do think you should feel shame for being on the Court so long. That you dont is just more evidence we need reform. Thats not political. Thats fairness. Every job should have term limits.

[windjammer]

Please explain to me why I should feel shameful about being Chief Justice for so long?

I seriously don't get it.

And following your logic, you think Yankee should feel shameful for having senator more or less continuously since 2008?

[windjammer]

And for the record,

I do not intend to retire necessarily during the president of a labor president.

Believe me or not but this is true.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Please explain to me why I should feel shameful about being Chief Justice for so long?

I seriously don't get it.

And following your logic, you think Yankee should feel shameful for having senator more or less continuously since 2008?

I hate long interrupted terms. I hate them in real life. I hate them in game. I think John Dingell and Strom Thurmond are 2 of the biggest schitheads weve had in politics because of how long they camped in their posts and at least they were elected. Youve spent what 23 or 24 presidential terms in the same unelected job for 8 years depriving anyone else of having any aspirations or opportunities to that office. Whenever anyone suggests this is outageously bad sportsmanship you get indignant. I suggest a 5 year term limit which based off presidential term conversions is equivalent to a 60 year term limit in real life and you cant even avoid freaking out about that proposal. I dont want literally anyone in this game, myself included, in any job that long. And you just keep making up stuff about how its political to even have a massively long term limit. You say no one wants the job which again I could find 10 replacements in a week if needed but the reason its not public is because you have murdered the chance to aspire to supreme court. You have killed it. The lack of interest is because you have made the job unattainable forever. Odds are we will have a reboot before you leave.

And the current court IS political. I dont care how you personally voted. The last abortion case was objectively political and objectively wrong. No debate no argument. Factually it was incorrectly decided for political reasons. It was also shameful. And not reforming the court is itself political. Period.

[windjammer]

I hate long interrupted terms. I hate them in real life. I hate them in game. I think John Dingell and Strom Thurmond are 2 of the biggest schitheads weve had in politics because of how long they camped in their posts and at least they were elected.

Out of curiosity, why do you hate them so much? I don't know them at all so I'm being genuinely curious.

Youve spent what 23 or 24 presidential terms in the same unelected job for 8 years depriving anyone else of having any aspirations or opportunities to that office. Whenever anyone suggests this is outageously bad sportsmanship you get indignant. I suggest a 5 year term limit which based off presidential term conversions is equivalent to a 60 year term limit in real life and you cant even avoid freaking out about that proposal. I dont want literally anyone in this game, myself included, in any job that long. And you just keep making up stuff about how its political to even have a massively long term limit. You say no one wants the job which again I could find 10 replacements in a week if needed but the reason its not public is because you have murdered the chance to aspire to supreme court. You have killed it. The lack of interest is because you have made the job unattainable forever. Odds are we will have a reboot before you leave.

Well, you speak like if the supreme court is some kind of dream job. Well I understand this is a dream for you because you're well versed in law, I suppose you have either some lawyer jobs or this is one of your hobby to follow the Supreme Court decisions.

But in the end, we are both adults. I'm 27 years old and you're in 40's I think (no offense if I'm being wrong).

You do realize this game is played by teenagers in high school for the majority of them right? Any active teenage people starting to play this game want one of these two things: 1) pass progressive or rightwing legislations  2) get elected president.

So you're accusing me of what? Killing aspirant people to join the supreme court ? There is like one case every 6 months. What kind of people who want to be active are going to find these positions some kind of dreams?

I didn't kill any aspiration to join the bench because no one joins atlasia to become some fantasy supreme court justices where there is one case every 6 months.

And the current court IS political. I dont care how you personally voted. The last abortion case was objectively political and objectively wrong. No debate no argument. Factually it was incorrectly decided for political reasons. It was also shameful. And not reforming the court is itself political. Period.

I have always known this was one of the reason you were doing all of that.

In the end you don't care about my vote, but I sided with you on these court cases and I was appointed by well known conservative Adam Griffin! How do you explain that?


And btw, if you truly believe no one should serve more than 5 years continuously. This should apply to all kind of offices and not only the supreme court. On that I'm sure you agree with me.

[West_Midlander]

Mr. R is 31.

[windjammer]

Mr. R is 31.

Well my apologies lol.

But my point still stands.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Out of curiosity, why do you hate them so much? I don't know them at all so I'm being genuinely curious.

Because I literally do not trust anyone who spends 50 years in government.

Well, you speak like if the supreme court is some kind of dream job. Well I understand this is a dream for you because you're well versed in law, I suppose you have either some lawyer jobs or this is one of your hobby to follow the Supreme Court decisions.

You do realize this game is played by teenagers in high school for the majority of them right? Any active teenage people starting to play this game want one of these two things: 1) pass progressive or rightwing legislations  2) get elected president.

So you're accusing me of what? Killing aspirant people to join the supreme court ? There is like one case every 6 months. What kind of people who want to be active are going to find these positions some kind of dreams?

I didn't kill any aspiration to join the bench because no one joins atlasia to become some fantasy supreme court justices where there is one case every 6 months.

There are several lawyers/law students/aspiring law students in game. Im sure many would aspire to it. I did. I know others who have. We dont even get to have the cases we could have because the court has decided that even their mandatory jurisdiction is discretionary which is insane.

I have always known this was one of the reason you were doing all of that.

In the end you don't care about my vote, but I sided with you on these court cases and I was appointed by well known conservative Adam Griffin! How do you explain that?

Because your vote didnt matter. Who cares about a 1 off dissent when the entire institution is already political without it. What, Im supposed to think an outrageous political decision isnt political because there was a dissent?

And btw, if you truly believe no one should serve more than 5 years continuously. This should apply to all kind of offices and not only the supreme court. On that I'm sure you agree with me.

Absolutely. You think I wouldnt support term limits for other jobs? I would happily add them to this if I thought it was feasible. I joined this game in 2017 like a year after the reboot. If you had told me 60% of the supreme court would be the exact same 7 years later I wouldnt have believed you.

[windjammer]

Because I literally do not trust anyone who spends 50 years in government.

Well being against the old just for the sake of being old never ends well.

There are several lawyers/law students/aspiring law students in game. Im sure many would aspire to it. I did. I know others who have. We dont even get to have the cases we could have because the court has decided that even their mandatory jurisdiction is discretionary which is insane.

It's not in our juridiction to deal with actions done and simulated by the GM regarding fictional characters.
If I'm not being mistaken you did argue about standing in some previous court cases so this is funny.

There are several lawyers/law students/aspiring law students in game. Im sure many would aspire to it. I did. I know others who have. We dont even get to have the cases we could have because the court has decided that even their mandatory jurisdiction is discretionary which is insane.

Believe me or not but I would love to know who they are. And if there were so many interested people in these positions like you claimed and had I been aware of that I would have retired a long time ago.

Because your vote didnt matter. Who cares about a 1 off dissent when the entire institution is already political without it. What, Im supposed to think an outrageous political decision isnt political because there was a dissent?

Well as you said I dissented on that. But in the end, the supreme court decision about abortion is far less "pro choice" than Roe vs Wade used to be.

Absolutely. You think I wouldnt support term limits for other jobs? I would happily add them to this if I thought it was feasible. I joined this game in 2017 like a year after the reboot. If you had told me 60% of the supreme court would be the exact same 7 years later I wouldnt have believed you.

Well, at least if you're really going to push for a term limits for the supreme court justices. I hope you're going to be fully honest about your intentions all the offices instead of just the supreme court. You know very well how to write that.

[windjammer]

Oh and blackraisin,

For the record I have come to appreciate you following our spats lol

[NewYorkExpress]

Quite honestly, Mr. Reactionary, I supported this amendment, but the fact is, a good legislative leader knows when to admit defeat on a bill. That you have refused to do so, and are refusing to acknowledge a motion to table that almost certainly would pass, is disturbing.

[West_Midlander]

Motion to table.

Withdrawn

[West_Midlander]

Quite honestly, Mr. Reactionary, I supported this amendment, but the fact is, a good legislative leader knows when to admit defeat on a bill. That you have refused to do so, and are refusing to acknowledge a motion to table that almost certainly would pass, is disturbing.

I believe someone would have needed to second my previous (now withdrawn) motion for it to be triggered.

[windjammer]

For the record,

In the defense of blackraisin (yes you see I can be impartial),
The senate rules request to have 2 senators to sponsor a motion to table for the vote to happen.


The senate rules say as well that any senator can request for a final vote, 24 hour for a senator to object:
- if objection: a vote to cloture (2/3 needed to pass if I recall)
- if no objection: final vote


Yes I have administered this body a long time ago lol

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Proposed amendment

This part is not a good idea, and I understand Windjammers (and other peoples) argument that judiciary elections (where "zombies" can vote in) are not a good idea.

Confirmation hearings (or retention hearings) should be held for the respective bodies, not a widespread regional or national election. Most (low-info) people are not aware (or interested) in what someone on the court does, to be frank.

Judicial Reform Amendment

The following additions, deletions, and changes are to be incorporated under Article V of the Fifth Constitution:

Section 1. The Judiciary.

1. The judicial power of the Republic of Atlasia shall be vested in the Supreme Court, the membership of which shall consist of two Justices and three Associate Justices chosen in the following manner:

i. The Justices of the Supreme Court shall be nominated by the President of the Republic of Atlasia and confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate.

ii. The chief executive officer of each of the several Regions shall nominate from among their constituents a candidate for Associate Justice. Upon the assent of a majority of the legislative power thereof, the nomination shall proceed to the President. If they the President approves of the nomination they should the President shall grant their Assent and the nominee shall assume the office of Associate Justice; but if they should the President disapproves they should the President shall veto it and the nomination will be annulled. If then two thirds of the Senate should vote to override the President's veto, the nominee shall take office regardless of the opinion of the President.

2. The Justices and Associate Justices thus chosen shall hold their offices for life in good behavior for a renewable term of two consecutive years;.

3. The President shall designate a Chief Justice from among the appointed Justices, who shall continue in that capacity until such time as they shall resign the designation, or else cease to be a member of the Supreme Court.

4. The term for any Supreme Court Justice or Associate Justice that, at the time this amendment is ratified, exceeds two consecutive years, shall follow a process as follows:

i. All Justices or Associate Justices who have served for more then two consecutive years shall be placed before their respective confirming legislative bodies for re-confirmation to a new 2-year term. The Associate Justice from the South shall be placed before the Southern Chamber of Delegates or similar Southern Regional legislature, the Associate Justice from Lincoln shall be placed before the Lincoln General Court or similar Lincolnite Regional legislature, the Associate Justice from Fremont shall be placed before the Fremont Parliament or similar Fremonter Regional legislature, and the At-large Justices shall be placed before the Senate. Should they fail to be re-confirmed, a new justice must be selected by the means outlined in Section 1, Subsection 1 of Article V of the Constitution.

5. Beginning August of 2024 and every subsequent August thereafter, all justices of the Supreme Court shall be subject to a retention election. It shall be a national election for the Chief Justice and Junior Federal Judge, and a regional election for each of the regional justices. It shall be a simple Yes/No question on retaining the judge. If the judge is not retained, they shall leave the court 30 days after the election. A replacement for them can be appointed and confirmed any time after the election is held, and they will take office once the 30 days conclude (or immediately if such days have already concluded). If a judge is not retained, they may not be reappointed for a period of six months after the election is held.

Section 2. Regional Courts

The judicial power of each of the several Regions shall be vested in a Circuit Court composed of the Associate Justice chosen from that Region, and no Region shall establish any other court or judicial authority to hear a case with original jurisdiction lying with the Supreme Court.

Section 3. Jurisdiction.

1. The original and mandatory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to :

i. all actual cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution and all official acts made under its authority;

ii. to all cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers; and

iii. to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

2. The appellate, concurrent, and discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall, as permitted by law, extend to controveries:

i. to controversies to which this Republic shall be a party;

ii. to controversies between two or more Regions, or between a Region and citizens of another Region;

iii. between citizens of different Regions;

iv. between citizens of the same Region claiming lands under grants of different Regions;

v. between a Region, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects; and

vi. to which an NPC unrepresented by a player shall be a party.

2.3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the Region where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any Region, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Senate may by law have directed.

This Constitutional Amendment establishes a two year term limit for Justices and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and establishes a staggered process for the expiration of the terms of existing Justices and Associate Justices who already exceed the term limit. This Constitutional Amendment also clarifies the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by identifying which cases and controversies the Supreme Court must hear and which they may, by discretion, hear.

[West_Midlander]

I object.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

If we want term limits, you just need biennial confirmation hearings, i'm supportive of biennal confirmation hearings before their respective bodies, but i'm not supportive of retention elections. It's part of the separation of powers. Senators and congresspeople have an ability to have a better understanding of the game and are more aware of what that person does and whether they should be re-confirmed or not.

Nationwide elections should be there for senators, and if people want a say on who has to be on the court, they can reflect that in electing senators and congresspeople.

Without striking Section I, Subsection 5 there's no chance this amendment will ever pass. If you want this amendment to have a possibility of passing, you need to strike Section I, Subsection 5.

I will not vote for this amendment as long Section I, Subsection 5 remains in the amendment. And the fact that no final vote has started yet, is a strong indicator that the votes simply aren't there to pass this amendment in its current state.

We've been debating this over a month, it's time to make some movement.

[windjammer]

I appreciate senator laki's striking down this part of the legislation.

However, can the senator explain me why the justices should be up for reconfirmation on the various regional/ senate body?

If really a supreme court justice is trash you can still remove it from the bench today with article of impeachment.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I appreciate senator laki's striking down this part of the legislation.

However, can the senator explain me why the justices should be up for reconfirmation on the various regional/ senate body?

If really a supreme court justice is trash you can still remove it from the bench today with article of impeachment.

Thanks, i believe we need to look for a compromise here.

I do think Mr. R has a point in that it isn't fun if someone can hold a position in the game for practically their entire life. Biennial confirmation hearings would theoretically give people or senators the option to experience confirmation hearings and do them again, every two year, just to confirm whether they still support the judge.

Your argument of judges needing to be impartial doesn't make sense, because when a judge has to be confirmed for the first time, they also require a confirmation hearing over a senate that is partisan. Judges are by definition partisan, you're practically campaigning for one side in the game, which is ok and allowed, because at the end that is a game, but allow people to have a way to replace people if they feel the need to do so.

If as you claim no-one would be interested to replace you, people would also not be keen on voting to not reconfirm you. If you make your case, you probably would be reconfirmed. People have a say in who their judges will be by sending representatives of their beliefs into the senate who can represent them during confirmation hearings. That's how a democracy works.

This to me is not about what Mr. R's personal intentions are, it's about what the amendment intends to do and what not, and I judge the amendment on its content.

Biennial confirmation hearings mean that if reconfirmed you hold the position for another two years, any other office you can hold for at most four months or until recalled by another administration. Not having to worry for your position for two years will maintain the independent nature of the courts.