SR 113-24: Judicial Reform Amendment (Passed)

[Mr. Reactionary]

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.

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.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is an amendment to provide much needed reform to the judiciary. It clarifies case jurisdiction for the court, including when cases must be heard (original jurisdiction) and when they may be heard by discretion (appellate jurisdiction).

It also puts in place a 2 consecutive year term limit which should enhance gameplay. I began playing Atlasia in 2017 (like 6 years ago) and there are still justices on the Court from before I joined which is ridiculous and ruins the fun of the game. We are a simulation and thus have several elections a year for the same office to ensure healthy turnover and to give others a chance to play. The notion that someone would camp in a position for SEVEN YEARS is pretty ridiculous and terrible for gameplay. Having life tenure for a game where the president is elected every 4 months is absurd. Its time for reform to enhance gameplay for everyone else who didnt happen to be dominant literally at the beginning of the last reboot.

2 year terms ensures independence while still beimg realistic with how the game is played. Again, its not fun for anyone else when an in-game job is literally permanently controlled by the same player. SEVEN YEARS is way way too long, regardless of if the court was actually doing its job or not. SEVEN. YEARS.

This allows term limited justices to be reappointed after a period off the court. It also provides for staggered removal to ensure the court doesnt lose everyone at once.

Ultimately, this amendment is important to reform the game moving forward. It clarifies when the court has to make a decision and ensures we dont have a permanent oligarch class who can hog a position forever and keep everyone else from having fun. This amendment should bring fairness, fun, and stability to the game.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I guess I will say friendly and allow 24 hours for objection.

[Mr. Reactionary]

24 hours to object to Blairites Amendment

[Mr. Reactionary]

24 hours to object to the Weatherboy Amendment.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Proposed Amemdment. 24 Hours for objections. WITHDRAWN

...

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.

...

[Mr. Reactionary]

Another amendment to clarify jurisdiction over cases where an NPC is a party. 24 hours to object.

...

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; and

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

...

[Mr. Reactionary]

I withdraw my first proposed amendment and offer the following amendment. 24 Hours for objections on this amendment.

...

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 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 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.

...

[Mr. Reactionary]

Spiral amendment is adopted.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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.

[Mr. Reactionary]

My 2 amendments are adopted.

Amendment votes are now open on the Blairite Amendment and the Weatherboy Amendment for 72 hours or until everyone votes, whichever occurs first. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.


Blairite Amendment:

...

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 two most senior Justices or Associate Justices shall expire sixty days after ratification.

ii. The term of the next two most senior Justices or Associate Justices shall expire one hundred twenty days after the expiration of the term of the two most senior Justices or Associate Justices.

...

Weatherboy Amendment:

Section 1. The Judiciary.

 ...

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; 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 follow a process as follows:expire as follows:

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

ii. The term of the next two most senior Justices or Associate Justices shall expire one hundred twenty days after the expiration of the term of the two most senior Justices or Associate Justices.

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.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay on both

[Mr. Reactionary]

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.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Amendment 1 fails 1-7-2-8

Amendment 2 passes 7-3-0-8

[Mr. Reactionary]

The labor party once had a super majority and we could have stacked the courts but we didn’t for a very good reason as we knew what it leads to.

The court is 4/5 (80%) Labor and will be forever under your plan. 3/5 of those Labor have been on the Court for greater than FIVE consecutive years. That isnt stacked?

[Mr. Reactionary]

The labor party once had a super majority and we could have stacked the courts but we didn’t for a very good reason as we knew what it leads to.

The court is 4/5 (80%) Labor and will be forever under your plan. 3/5 of those Labor have been on the Court for greater than FIVE consecutive years. That isnt stacked?

Actually only 2 people are from labor.

And in the end why should it matter ? Are you accusing the court of being partisan?

I seem to recall last year 1 opinion stating "All prior Atlasian case law is overturned and Roe v. Wade is now muh law of teh land because its a real life supreme court precedent." Then like 3 months later when I cited different real life supreme court precedent, I was told by the court in a complete reversal of itself "who cares? real life supreme court precedent doesnt matter in game when we dont want it to." Thats at minimum suspect.

Similarly, the recent decision to try and nullify through inaction a federal social media law designed to stop censorship has rankled a number of people. And when a proposal is discussed to within the rules make some changes so that maybe other people can have fun too, the faux alarmists are literally saying we can never, ever, ever change the 7 year old rules or change the ways the rules are interpreted.

When i first joined the game in 2017 I heard many private complaints on different policy/interpretation issues that appealing to the supreme court would not be useful because of "the current makeup." 6 years later, other than musical chairs in 1 Region, the current makeup is identical.

Like, this is a game. It is not fun to have permanent posts in a game. Weve been over this already. I dont think its fair to have players, regardless of party in the same in-game job for more than a few consecutive years max. I dont think thats unreasonable. I dont think literal life tenure in a game that has historically rebooted in shorter periods than your current tenure on the court is reasonable. 3 consecutive years with only 1 side holding the Presidency wasnt fun for most. And we are supposed to pretend more than twice that with the Supreme Court isnt a broken facet of the game?

Term limits are neutral. They are certain. They apply to everyone. They dont rely on partisan retention votes. I think term limits are sorely needed.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

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

Theres possibly lots we could do to tease out potentially intetested justices, but there wont be much vocalization when 80% of the court hasnt been available to new players in like 6 years.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please explain how the Supreme court has benefited labor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summary.

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

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

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

And with that, Im done engaging with judges who think they are senators. Maybe you should resign and run for the senate on this political issue if it means that much to you. Youd probably have a decent shot of getting elected.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

We cycled through 3 names that appointment.

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

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

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

[Mr. Reactionary]

I will see if I can find a consensus plan soon.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.