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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 02, 2023, 04:55:54 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  SR 113-24: Judicial Reform Amendment (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Author Topic: SR 113-24: Judicial Reform Amendment (Debating)  (Read 1172 times)
Senator Classic Liminal
Lawer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 660
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: January 23, 2023, 12:47:18 PM »

In the case of Death of someone on the court, and assuming that they do not resign before it or someone they know after it, does that seat ever become vacant? Or is it still held by them despite the fact that it should be vacant?
Logged
PragmaticPopulist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,181
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: January 23, 2023, 12:57:53 PM »

Aye on both.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,553
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: January 23, 2023, 01:24:25 PM »

In the case of Death of someone on the court, and assuming that they do not resign before it or someone they know after it, does that seat ever become vacant? Or is it still held by them despite the fact that it should be vacant?

Death renders a person no longer a person, so a dead justice would not be deemed to be meeting the qualifications and the office and so the office would be viewed as vacant.
Logged
Senator Laki
Lakigigar
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,607
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -4.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: January 23, 2023, 08:14:34 PM »

Nay on 1

Aye on 2 (the WB amendment)
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,851
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: January 24, 2023, 04:40:11 AM »

Y'all right-wingers just admit to trying to stuff 4 out of 5 seats with Mr R clones while you're in power.

Compromise: if the South gets "autonomy", so does SCOA in ignoring whatever garbage this is.
Logged
At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder
LouisvilleThunder
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,034
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: 1.74

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: January 24, 2023, 07:47:48 AM »

Y'all right-wingers just admit to trying to stuff 4 out of 5 seats with Mr R clones while you're in power.

Compromise: if the South gets "autonomy", so does SCOA in ignoring whatever garbage this is.
We have no need to listen to you're rantings. GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE.
Logged
West_Midlander
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,649
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: 1.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: January 24, 2023, 10:54:29 AM »

Present on 1, Aye on 2
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,851
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: January 24, 2023, 06:15:19 PM »

Y'all right-wingers just admit to trying to stuff 4 out of 5 seats with Mr R clones while you're in power.

Compromise: if the South gets "autonomy", so does SCOA in ignoring whatever garbage this is.
We have no need to listen to you're rantings. GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE.


Logged
WD
Western Democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,490
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: January 24, 2023, 06:18:33 PM »

Y'all right-wingers just admit to trying to stuff 4 out of 5 seats with Mr R clones while you're in power.

Compromise: if the South gets "autonomy", so does SCOA in ignoring whatever garbage this is.
We have no need to listen to you're rantings. GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE.




“You’re rantings”. Heartbreaking to see such illiteracy among our Senators.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,441
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: January 24, 2023, 08:15:28 PM »

Amendment 1 (Blairite): Abstain

Amendment 2 (Weatherboy): Aye
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,438
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: January 24, 2023, 08:18:34 PM »

     Windjammer is right that these positions are not desirable to active players; when I was Emperor in the IDS for years, I found it very hard to staff our region's judicial office. I would be very interested to know if there are in fact newer players who want to become justices and are finding themselves stonewalled by the lifetime appointments, because that has simply not been the case in Atlasia historically.
Logged
GM Team Member WB
weatherboy1102
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,996
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -7.83

P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: January 24, 2023, 08:55:12 PM »

the main thing I'm looking to do is make it so we can review judge's conduct over 2 years then decide if they should stay or go, not as much make it so there's a whole bunch of new ones. In fact, I think *most* of the court's doing fine right now and would vote to reconfirm most of the justices (though 3 of them are out of my hands so I wouldn't be able to). But having some accountability can't hurt.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,441
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: January 24, 2023, 08:58:08 PM »

     Windjammer is right that these positions are not desirable to active players; when I was Emperor in the IDS for years, I found it very hard to staff our region's judicial office. I would be very interested to know if there are in fact newer players who want to become justices and are finding themselves stonewalled by the lifetime appointments, because that has simply not been the case in Atlasia historically.

That's the downside of a hard limit is that in fact I even thought of your struggles back in the day when I first approached this text. We could end up having to leave positions vacant if there is a hard limit.

I think while not perfect, Weatherboy probably has come to closest to getting this balance right, both here and in terms of avoiding elections in the judicial branch.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,115
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: January 25, 2023, 02:31:10 AM »

the main thing I'm looking to do is make it so we can review judge's conduct over 2 years then decide if they should stay or go, not as much make it so there's a whole bunch of new ones. In fact, I think *most* of the court's doing fine right now and would vote to reconfirm most of the justices (though 3 of them are out of my hands so I wouldn't be able to). But having some accountability can't hurt.
Well I understand you're doing all these efforts to remove me. But in the end, all the decisions that I have written were almost anonymous.


Given the tantrum I faced in the past for making the right decisions, je Louisville etc.

How wouldn't that make the Supreme Court dependent from the senate?


Justice isn't ruling in favor of the mob.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,115
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: January 25, 2023, 07:39:10 AM »

And on an another note,
If you want terms, it's better to have "fixed terms". Because otherwise there would be 4 seats up at the same time.
I will write an amendment fixing that.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,717


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: 2.09

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: January 25, 2023, 02:02:17 PM »

Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,851
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: January 26, 2023, 11:37:31 PM »

It's pretty amazing how in 2015, I tried to convince the ConCon to adopt a 3-person SCOA (which was what it was prior to the reset) with one-year, staggered terms (i.e. 1 appointment/retention every 4 months): this meant that every President would get to appoint or retain 1 Justice (if not 2, assuming they won two terms as President).

Imagine all of our shock that it was the conservatives (among others!) who shot this idea down, talking about the "integrity of the Court", too much volatility and the need for lifetime appointments. Of course, this was coming out of a years-long period where the conservative/status quo neoliberal dynamic was a constant on the Court.

Also, to echo PiT's sentiments: the Supreme Court is not a place for advancement. It's where old farts end up by design who have ample experience in the game but who don't want to play in the day-to-day minutiae anymore. The arguments that "upward mobility" or whatever some might call it is being stymied is hilarious, because that has literally never been the case with this body nor is the case today. I'm not going to bother running the averages, but 3-5 years on the court for non-flakes is pretty much on par with the entirety of the game's history.

Just be gross, y'all. I never cared to admit doing s[inks]t for political gain. What is truly despicable is when the usual suspects (who've been around far longer than they care to admit, yet call me "old man" or whatever) try to invent some sordid web of excuses when they just wanna be grossly partisan. Ugh, Jesus. Gross.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,441
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: January 27, 2023, 01:00:49 AM »

It's pretty amazing how in 2015, I tried to convince the ConCon to adopt a 3-person SCOA (which was what it was prior to the reset) with one-year, staggered terms (i.e. 1 appointment/retention every 4 months): this meant that every President would get to appoint or retain 1 Justice (if not 2, assuming they won two terms as President).

Imagine all of our shock that it was the conservatives (among others!) who shot this idea down, talking about the "integrity of the Court", too much volatility and the need for lifetime appointments. Of course, this was coming out of a years-long period where the conservative/status quo neoliberal dynamic was a constant on the Court.

Also, to echo PiT's sentiments: the Supreme Court is not a place for advancement. It's where old farts end up by design who have ample experience in the game but who don't want to play in the day-to-day minutiae anymore. The arguments that "upward mobility" or whatever some might call it is being stymied is hilarious, because that has literally never been the case with this body nor is the case today. I'm not going to bother running the averages, but 3-5 years on the court for non-flakes is pretty much on par with the entirety of the game's history.

Just be gross, y'all. I never cared to admit doing s[inks]t for political gain. What is truly despicable is when the usual suspects (who've been around far longer than they care to admit, yet call me "old man" or whatever) try to invent some sordid web of excuses when they just wanna be grossly partisan. Ugh, Jesus. Gross.

In 2015  what defined conservatism in this game was completely separate and detached from real life out of necessity. The Bush era GOP was DOA and the only path forward was some kind of libertarian esque coalition that abandoned most of the hot button culture war issues in favor of broader and vaguer concepts, such was necessary to built a competitive right of center coalition. 

By 2015, there was no effective opposition on the right to my philosophical influence and while there were desperate attempts to circumvent that, all of which failed. Either because of the seeds that PiT and I planted in the RPP era that precluded the post party dissolution era from deviating from that line (The Midwest Conservatives were very regionalist for example) and the IDS was always a bastion of regionalism. This meant that even though I had stepped away from leadership on the right for two years, it was still all shackled by the legacy of the RPP, carried forth by the likes of PiT, Zuwo, JCL or whoever you might name in that regards.

There was animus on the right regarding Opebo and a desire to remove him and there were attempts to insert the RL rights preference for term limits into the game. If one were to review the mid 2013 vote on term limits for example, I was the only Federalist who came out against judicial term limits and sided with the Liberal Party aligned Senators against it, amounting to 3 Nay votes and since Polnut abstained it failed.

The in-game situation had shifted. The right still viewed regions as beneficial to them, and the court was clearly pro-region in having opposed the business in June 2013 in the Pacific. Thus by definition, in terms of "in-game" politics, the court was "conservative" on the primary issue that mattered to "most conservatives" in game and RL pressures were irrelevant. There were voices who tried to pull in that direction and pull away from the RPP legacy, but they failed to make headway, moved to the left, left the game, or were forced to accept the in-game reality out of necessity.

By 2015, anything resembling dissent on the right had departed from the Federalists, many of the ex RPPers were still around and many of the new people and faces embraced my message seeing me as the voice of reasons against the nutcases in the radical movement.

Discord, the Trump era, the the continued Labor dominance of the court and lack of an organized alt-left threatening to destroy the game and thus illustrate the benefits of an establishment left court slowly eroded the rights in game opposition to judicial term limits.

The post Bush dynamic is now gone also and the right is far more unified and supportive of RL political battles then was the case back in the late 2000s when so many young conservatives were completely at odds with the RL party on social issues and foreign policy.


Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,115
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: January 27, 2023, 02:45:08 AM »

the main thing I'm looking to do is make it so we can review judge's conduct over 2 years then decide if they should stay or go, not as much make it so there's a whole bunch of new ones. In fact, I think *most* of the court's doing fine right now and would vote to reconfirm most of the justices (though 3 of them are out of my hands so I wouldn't be able to). But having some accountability can't hurt.
Well I understand you're doing all these efforts to remove me. But in the end, all the decisions that I have written were almost anonymous.


Given the tantrum I faced in the past for making the right decisions, je Louisville etc.

How wouldn't that make the Supreme Court dependent from the senate?


Justice isn't ruling in favor of the mob.
Weatherboy could you please answer me?

I don't see how it doesn't end into some partisan elections the fait every year they would have to be reconfirmed.


I understand for gameplay purposes it could be interesting to have a blatant partisan supreme court
But IS it really what you want?
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,717


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: 2.09

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: January 27, 2023, 02:56:32 AM »

I will be putting up an amendment or two that would better deal with the reconfirming process.
Logged
GM Team Member WB
weatherboy1102
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,996
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -7.83

P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: January 27, 2023, 04:39:11 AM »

the main thing I'm looking to do is make it so we can review judge's conduct over 2 years then decide if they should stay or go, not as much make it so there's a whole bunch of new ones. In fact, I think *most* of the court's doing fine right now and would vote to reconfirm most of the justices (though 3 of them are out of my hands so I wouldn't be able to). But having some accountability can't hurt.
Well I understand you're doing all these efforts to remove me. But in the end, all the decisions that I have written were almost anonymous.


Given the tantrum I faced in the past for making the right decisions, je Louisville etc.

How wouldn't that make the Supreme Court dependent from the senate?


Justice isn't ruling in favor of the mob.
Weatherboy could you please answer me?

I don't see how it doesn't end into some partisan elections the fait every year they would have to be reconfirmed.


I understand for gameplay purposes it could be interesting to have a blatant partisan supreme court
But IS it really what you want?
I was planning on having the reconfirmations be staggered with an amendment. The only issue is mathematically trying to split those reconfirmations to be perfectly spread out is annoying with 24/5 not being a nice fraction.

And this doesn't make it dependent on the Senate. The regional justices are still re-confirmed by the regional legislatures.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,553
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: January 27, 2023, 08:20:32 AM »

Amendment 1 fails 1-7-2-8

Amendment 2 passes 7-3-0-8
Logged
Fmr. Lincoln Deputy Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,104
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: January 27, 2023, 12:58:12 PM »

Current Text for Reference:

Quote
Judicial Reform Amendment

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


Quote
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.

Quote from: Amendment Explanation
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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,115
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: January 27, 2023, 03:12:46 PM »

the main thing I'm looking to do is make it so we can review judge's conduct over 2 years then decide if they should stay or go, not as much make it so there's a whole bunch of new ones. In fact, I think *most* of the court's doing fine right now and would vote to reconfirm most of the justices (though 3 of them are out of my hands so I wouldn't be able to). But having some accountability can't hurt.
Well I understand you're doing all these efforts to remove me. But in the end, all the decisions that I have written were almost anonymous.


Given the tantrum I faced in the past for making the right decisions, je Louisville etc.

How wouldn't that make the Supreme Court dependent from the senate?


Justice isn't ruling in favor of the mob.
Weatherboy could you please answer me?

I don't see how it doesn't end into some partisan elections the fait every year they would have to be reconfirmed.


I understand for gameplay purposes it could be interesting to have a blatant partisan supreme court
But IS it really what you want?
I was planning on having the reconfirmations be staggered with an amendment. The only issue is mathematically trying to split those reconfirmations to be perfectly spread out is annoying with 24/5 not being a nice fraction.

And this doesn't make it dependent on the Senate. The regional justices are still re-confirmed by the regional legislatures.
For the record as soon as Computer writes his amendment  I will write my own amendment to make sure all Justices aren't up for reelection/reconfirmation at the same time.


As for your other point, whether this is in front of the senator or a regional legislature, my point still stands.

In my case for example, when the Court withdrew the Louisville trial. It was honestly the good judiciary decision to make as the accusation failes to show up. But this was unpopular.


Do you really believe that WE would have been reconfirmed as the mood was lynching the Justices.


Don't you see the problems that are going to arise if the Court is so dependant from the various legislative bodies?


I'm curious from your answer
Logged
Fmr. Lincoln Deputy Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,104
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: January 27, 2023, 04:26:51 PM »

If a Justice would not be reconfirmed or retained that would be because of how they acted in office. I don't want a blatantly partisan system, but the current system, in which a supermajority of current players weren't around or were very new when 80% of the judges were chosen, is not a good system either. I would hope my vote for Sestak shows I am willing to vote for judges whose ideology is different from mine. And indeed, none of my problems with the Court have stemmed from actual full fledged rulings, but instead from refusals of action.

As far as timing goes, we've already substantially amended Reactionary's language and I think more are coming. But 4 of 5 justices will be subject to fairly quick reconfirmation regardless, it's not just you that is getting reevaluated Windjammer.

As far as the refusal on the Louisville case goes, while that refusal is settled precedent that I won't support re-litigating, I still believe that was the wrong decision. And of course, you have more or less said you were looking for a way to drop that case even before the "speedy trial concerns" arose, which I definitely don't think was appropriate.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  
« 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 0.1 seconds with 12 queries.