SR 113-24: Judicial Reform Amendment (Passed)

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Nay on 1

Aye on 2 (the WB amendment)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Aye