SR 113-24: Judicial Reform Amendment (Passed)

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Amendment to add in retention elections. I chose April because it's not particularly heavy on competitive regional contests and is not a presidential cycle. Feel free to mess with it.

Senate Resolution

To amend the Constitution to establish term limits for Supreme Court Justices and Associate Justices and clarify the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Be It Resolved in the Atlasian Senate Assembled, that upon ratification by 2/3rds of the Regions, the Constitution shall be amended as follows:

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 term of two consecutive years; however no person shall be reappointed to the Supreme Court until at least ninety days have passed since their previous term as Justice or Associate Justice.

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 expire as follows:

i. The term of the most senior Justice or Associate Justice shall expire automatically upon ratification.

ii. The term of the next most senior Justice or Associate Justice shall expire thirty days after the expiration of the term of the most senior Justice or Associate Justice; and thenafter every subsequent thirty days the term of the next most senior Justice or Associate Justice shall expire in descending order of seniority until all Justices and Associate Justices on the Supreme Court shall have served for fewer than two consecutive years.

5. Each April, 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; and

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

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 tje 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.

Sponsor: Reactionary
Debate on this amendment is now open.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I was going to instead do something different with the legislatures who confirmed these justices having to reconfirm the current ones. For example, PiT in the CoD, but WJ in the Senate. I’ll give some thought on whether I think that idea is better than Wulfric’s.

As Mr. R's language is currently constructed (and unchanged by mine), all the Justices with the exception of Sestak (as he was just appointed) will be turfed off the court by the term limit thing in very short order (so basically, for those who will still be on the court in April, the retention will just decide if their mandatory break is 90 days or 6 months). There will be different nominees for each of those seats, unless the appropriate bodies want to just hold the seat open for 90 days.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Honestly I know this can be surprising but I do believe blackraisin does have some point.

However I detest the part where I would be instantly removed from office as I genuinely think this is just to screw me basically.

Can someone write some amendment where:
- the 2 most senior justices would expire at the end of the first semester
- the 2 or 3 other at the end of this year.

I mean something like that?

I guess I see a level of Wisdom in that. Once we see if the retention thing is adopted or not I can write up an implementation delay.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm not going to continue to argue with blackraisin who thinks that I'm being some criminal because I'm holding an office for 7 years that literally NO ACTIVE  PLAYER WANTS.

This is an unverifiable statement. To any common observer before now, you were intent on occupying the position forever and basically impossible to remove. Therefore, anyone interested would see no value in expressing that interest because it would not result in them achieving anything. People are not going to waste their breath over an impossible to obtain position.

Now that we have opened the doors to new justices, such interest is being allowed to appear and I believe will appear in due time.

This reminds me of Tack being like "Well I thought it was Kaiser or bust" during the Lincoln nomination. Then he got names provided to him by various sources, and in the end we got a nominee who didn't have Kansas Crisis baggage (even if there were some nefarious tactics behind the scenes) that we could all feel decent about voting for. Sometimes you just need to open up your windows and look around.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Turnover for the sake of turnover is a bad idea and makes the game less exclusive by driving them from office (although really this applies to the original version of this amendment but I’m pointing it out here because that’s a sentiment).

And do you guys actually want people GOTVing for judicial elections? BECAUSE THIS WILL HAPPEN AND DON’T CRY ABOUT IT WHEN IT DOES. Especially if the election is in the off-month?

The game being "less exclusive" is a good thing. If you meant "more exclusive", that would not be the result. More people getting to hold jobs over time is by definition more inclusive. As for GOTV, that's part of the game.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Proposed Amemdment. 24 Hours for objections.

...

i. The term of the two most senior Justices or Associate Justices shall expire automatically upon sixty days after ratification.

ii. The term of the next two most senior Justices or Associate Justices shall expire thirty one hundred twenty days after the expiration of the term of the two most senior Justices or Associate Justices; and thenafter every subsequent thirt days the term of the next most senior Justice or Associate Justice shall expire in descending order of seniority until all Justices and Associate Justices on the Supreme Court shall have served for fewer than two consecutive years.

5. Each April Beginning May of 2024 and every subsequent May 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 Supreme Court thirty 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 thirty 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.

...

We should do a more on-month for the retention elections, rather than something that is otherwise just some sleepy Fremont elections. Perhaps April or August?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm not going to continue to argue with blackraisin who thinks that I'm being some criminal because I'm holding an office for 7 years that literally NO ACTIVE  PLAYER WANTS.

This is an unverifiable statement. To any common observer before now, you were intent on occupying the position forever and basically impossible to remove. Therefore, anyone interested would see no value in expressing that interest because it would not result in them achieving anything. People are not going to waste their breath over an impossible to obtain position.

Now that we have opened the doors to new justices, such interest is being allowed to appear and I believe will appear in due time.

This reminds me of Tack being like "Well I thought it was Kaiser or bust" during the Lincoln nomination. Then he got names provided to him by various sources, and in the end we got a nominee who didn't have Kansas Crisis baggage (even if there were some nefarious tactics behind the scenes) that we could all feel decent about voting for. Sometimes you just need to open up your windows and look around.

It is a verifiable take. I won a presidential election remember? And I was looking to find someone to replace me.

There were only three candidates interested: talleyrand, Oak and Siren and all of them weren't active players

Fair point, but then again that was two years ago.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Objections noted. To keep us from possibly missing votes, and since we are currently voting on another amendment I will open  these amendment votes when the other amendment vote closes tomorrow, while discission continues.

Voting on another amendment? Is that in this thread, I am not seeing where?

He's referring to votes ongoing on other legislation (i.e. don't have every thread voting at once).

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Current Text for Reference:

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.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

What do you have against the current supreme court exactly?


As I already said, these seats aren't for active players

And on an another note,
I'm ing tired of this disinformation against my person. What I Said regarding the Louisville trial it is that I believe the offense he was being accused were grave enough not to be judged by a fantasy supreme court but should have been dealt by the moderators.

I didn't withdraw this trial because I didn't want to take it like you are insinuating

My understanding is the moderation team did take a look at the matter at the time. I am not familiar with why they did not employ substantial forum-based sanctions. As for in-game sanctions like stripping voting rights, SCOA would be the only ones with jurisdiction to impose that, short of banning LT from the AFE board as a whole, and I'm not entirely sure if doing that was supported by the forum software at the time (or banning him entirely, for which public support did not exist).

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

What do you have against the current supreme court exactly?


As I already said, these seats aren't for active players

And on an another note,
I'm ing tired of this disinformation against my person. What I Said regarding the Louisville trial it is that I believe the offense he was being accused were grave enough not to be judged by a fantasy supreme court but should have been dealt by the moderators.

I didn't withdraw this trial because I didn't want to take it like you are insinuating

My understanding is the moderation team did take a look at the matter at the time. I am not familiar with why they did not employ substantial forum-based sanctions. As for in-game sanctions like stripping voting rights, SCOA would be the only ones with jurisdiction to impose that, short of banning LT from the AFE board as a whole, and I'm not entirely sure if doing that was supported by the forum software at the time.

Wulfric,
We were talking about doxxing accusation which I believed were grave accusation to be dealt by the mods. I don't know what they did or they didn't but this was MY POSITION.

I did take the Louisville case regarding fantasyland and I worked my ass to make the trial as fair as it could, the first being that Louisville being represented by an attorney.

In the end the accusation completely screwed up by not presenting their case and a second attorney emerged like one month later because he was being busy trying to make Lincoln secede.

So tell me Wulfric what did I do wrong that was deserving this removal.from office threat? I did my best to make the trial the fairer possible and it is not my fault the defense screwed up

Well the reality of the doxxing accusation was each part of the "Atlas Government" needed to address what was in its jurisdiction:

The Discord moderators handled discord sanctions - LT was banned from the Atlas Discord for a number of years
The Atlas moderators handled forum sanctions - and for whatever reason didn't do much
Imposing in-game sanctions fell to you guys, and you guys also declined to take action.

What you did wrong was:
- Dropping the case (speedy trial should refer to cases years afterward, not barely 4 months afterward)
- Threatening people who disagreed with you in the case's thread (although I will grant that you later partially retracted this under some pressure)
- Later admitting that you didn't want the case anyway and were glad it was dropped, essentially saying you wanted LT to get away with nothing outside of discord (since, for whatever reason, the forum moderators had more or less dropped the case at that point and your body was the only one that could impose sanctions.)

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Whatever. In any case, the new mandatory jurisdiction provision should prevent such a miscarriage of justice from happening again.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

On an another note,
Yankee is raising a good parallel.

The radicals and other TPP/discord followers are Always trying to get rid of me. They succeeded 10 years ago and what After happened was a dark period of personal harassment, bullying mostly directed against Yankee and myself true but it was clearly having a negative on the game


Wulfric saying he wants this amendment passed to make sure the case I administered finally goes his way.


My conduct has Always been perfectly legal. There is nothing that I did as Supreme Court Justice that is objectionable. I Can defend all my supreme court decisions.

On an anything thing, it's obvious I'm having to deal with people looking to scapegoat me because I'm the one postikg the results etc. But in the end, almost everything I did was unanimous.

1. I think you missed the part where I said that at this point, I wouldn't support re-litigating the Louisville Decision. While I don't feel a four month time span falls under speedy trial violation, eighteen months definitely does.

As far as the Elon Musk Decision goes, I hope that can be resolved through executive orders or some sort of GM simulation. It's possible that that could be brought back before a future court, but too early to say if it will be.

This amendment is more about changing how things are handled going forward, not re-litigating the past.

2. Nothing you've done is objectionable is an obvious falsehood. Yes, everything you did was legal, and had some reasoning behind it, and whether out of genuine agreement or simple adherence to the will of the Chief (I suspect it is more the latter), most of what you did did not have vocalized dissenting opinions. But that doesn't mean that some of your actions don't have arguments against them, or that all of your conduct has been perfectly honorable in every possible light.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

2. Nothing you've done is objectionable is an obvious falsehood. Yes, everything you did was legal, and had some reasoning behind it, and whether out of genuine agreement or simple adherence to the will of the Chief (I suspect it is more the latter), most of what you did did not have vocalized dissenting opinions. But that doesn't mean that some of your actions don't have arguments against them, or that all of your conduct has been perfectly honorable in every possible light.

You know this reminds me of November 2016 when one of the Blair supporting CR members or whatever they were calling themselves by that point said something to the effect of "their is no way Yankee agrees to split the term" then hours later a deal with Blair splitting the term was announced. Was that you, I cannot remember?

Rather then engage in conjecture about the nature of a dynamic, why not just ask them yourself? PiT posted in this thread earlier. BK might not be available at present but I would reckon most of the others involved can be reached for inquiry.

Either way its better than just presuming the other justices are Windjammer's mind slaves. I have known PiT for fourteen and a half years, doesn't sound like something he would be keen on doing.

I was in CR and did support Blair. I don't recall ever opining on the deal, you'd have to search my history.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

On an another note,
Yankee is raising a good parallel.

The radicals and other TPP/discord followers are Always trying to get rid of me. They succeeded 10 years ago and what After happened was a dark period of personal harassment, bullying mostly directed against Yankee and myself true but it was clearly having a negative on the game


Wulfric saying he wants this amendment passed to make sure the case I administered finally goes his way.


My conduct has Always been perfectly legal. There is nothing that I did as Supreme Court Justice that is objectionable. I Can defend all my supreme court decisions.

On an anything thing, it's obvious I'm having to deal with people looking to scapegoat me because I'm the one postikg the results etc. But in the end, almost everything I did was unanimous.

1. I think you missed the part where I said that at this point, I wouldn't support re-litigating the Louisville Decision. While I don't feel a four month time span falls under speedy trial violation, eighteen months definitely does.

As far as the Elon Musk Decision goes, I hope that can be resolved through executive orders or some sort of GM simulation. It's possible that that could be brought back before a future court, but too early to say if it will be.

This amendment is more about changing how things are handled going forward, not re-litigating the past.

2. Nothing you've done is objectionable is an obvious falsehood. Yes, everything you did was legal, and had some reasoning behind it, and whether out of genuine agreement or simple adherence to the will of the Chief (I suspect it is more the latter), most of what you did did not have vocalized dissenting opinions. But that doesn't mean that some of your actions don't have arguments against them, or that all of your conduct has been perfectly honorable in every possible light.

You literally Said on this thread you want this passed to avoid the Louisville court case go the same way that it happened before.

I did say that ruling was wrong and that this bill would prevent similar rulings in the future. But I also said:

As far as the refusal on the Louisville case goes, while that refusal is settled precedent that I won't support re-litigating,

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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

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)

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Uh bump?

[Attorney General & 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.

[Attorney General & 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.