Judicial Term Limits Amendment [Failed]

[Sam Spade]

Once again, I am putting this legislation into the sixth slot on the Senate floor.  If anyone wishes to challenge my decision, please do so.

Judicial Term Limits Amendment

Article III, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Atlasian Constitution shall be created to read as follows:

Supreme Court Justices shall serve terms not exceeding 12 months. At the end of that time, the seat shall be considered open to re-nomination. The President shall be free to re-nominate the same citizen to serve on the Court in the same capacity. The sitting Justice shall continue to serve until such time as the Senate confirms the President’s nominee.

(Sponsor: Ebowed)

[DownWithTheLeft]

It sounds like a good idea, however, wouldn't that create the immediate problem of all the justices coming up at the same time considering I believe they have all been justices a year or around that.  I kind of like the idea of the bill, but I don't know if it is the best thing to do at this point.  As much as I would love to see Opebo off the court after his decision in Ernest v. Gabu regarding Defarge's vote, this might not be the best way to do it.  Reconfirmation every year might be a good idea though.

[Keystone Phil]

I have long believed that the justices should be term limited (though I do have one major concern) but is this really even a term limit? Under this bill, the President has the power to re-nominate the justice. I think that's a fine idea but I don't think this should be labeled as a term limit bill.

[opebo]

It sounds like a good idea, however, wouldn't that create the immediate problem of all the justices coming up at the same time considering I believe they have all been justices a year or around that.  I kind of like the idea of the bill, but I don't know if it is the best thing to do at this point.  As much as I would love to see Opebo off the court after his decision in Ernest v. Gabu regarding Defarge's vote, this might not be the best way to do it.  Reconfirmation every year might be a good idea though.

What was wrong with that decision?  I don't remember it myself.

But please allow me to remind you wild-eyed reformers that those of us currently on the court would not be subject to your unatlasian innovation.  I for one intend to serve for life.

[Brandon H]

I have long believed that the justices should be term limited (though I do have one major concern) but is this really even a term limit? Under this bill, the President has the power to re-nominate the justice. I think that's a fine idea but I don't think this should be labeled as a term limit bill.

How about "Judicial Term Amendment"?

[Ebowed]

I motion to add at the end of this legislation the following phrase [friendly amendment]:
"This amendment shall not apply to any Justice currently serving on the Court."

I would, as DWTL also notes, be uncomfortable with 3 nominations coming up at the same time as the court should have some degree of consistency.

[Ebowed]

How about "Judicial Term Amendment"?

Accepted as friendly.

[minionofmidas]

I motion to add at the end of this legislation the following phrase [friendly amendment]:
"This amendment shall not apply to any Justice currently serving on the Court."

Let's have a vote on that.

[opebo]

I do appreciate this suggestion by Lewis Trondheim, but I would like to remind the legislators that we must apply the constitution, and while I don't know about the other justices, I would invalidate any term limitation upon currently sitting justices as unconstitutional.

[minionofmidas]

I do appreciate this suggestion by Lewis Trondheim,

I think you mean Porce's suggestion, but nvm.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Under which clause?

[opebo]

but I would like to remind the legislators that we must apply the constitution, and while I don't know about the other justices, I would invalidate any term limitation upon currently sitting justices as unconstitutional.

Under which clause?

'Ex post facto', Lewis Trondheim, 'ex post facto'.  (thanks to wikipedia).

[Јas]

On the issue of multiple terms ending at the same time, I'd simply underline that no vacancy arises - the sitting justice continues to sit until such time as a new justice is confirmed.

[DownWithTheLeft]

It sounds like a good idea, however, wouldn't that create the immediate problem of all the justices coming up at the same time considering I believe they have all been justices a year or around that.  I kind of like the idea of the bill, but I don't know if it is the best thing to do at this point.  As much as I would love to see Opebo off the court after his decision in Ernest v. Gabu regarding Defarge's vote, this might not be the best way to do it.  Reconfirmation every year might be a good idea though.

What was wrong with that decision?  I don't remember it myself.

But please allow me to remind you wild-eyed reformers that those of us currently on the court would not be subject to your unatlasian innovation.  I for one intend to serve for life.

What was wrong with that decision?  You ruled that Defarge's vote was not invalid even though it was clear-cut that he did not meet the requirments of posts needed.  That is why I support this bill if changed, some justices proved incapable of sitting on the court.

[Јas]

How about "Judicial Term Amendment"?

Accepted as friendly.

Senators have 24 hours to object to the adoption of this amendment as friendly.

[Sam Spade]

My solution would be to make the 12-month term limit clause begin with the present justices once the Amendment was passed - with spreading the terms out.  Or, one might make the individual justice terms of 6-8 months maximum and the Chief Justice of 12 months.  Just a thought.

Ex post facto laws normally deal with criminal provisions, and this is certainly not a criminal provision.

Besides, if a clause in the Constitution is in conflict with another clause in the Constitution, the standard rule of interpretation is that the latter clause wins out.

Anyways, I will vote against Porce's amendment and will be introducing one of my own with the above-stated plan.

I intend to vote for the measure, especially after the comments of Mr. Justice Opebo above.

[minionofmidas]

Anyways, I will vote against Porce's amendment

I motion to add at the end of this legislation the following phrase [friendly amendment]:
"This amendment shall not apply to any Justice currently serving on the Court."

Let's have a vote on that.

I think that makes the necessary two objections?

[Јas]

Anyways, I will vote against Porce's amendment

I motion to add at the end of this legislation the following phrase [friendly amendment]:
"This amendment shall not apply to any Justice currently serving on the Court."

Let's have a vote on that.

I think that makes the necessary two objections?

All friendly amendments must be accepted as such by the sponsor and it takes but one objection to force a vote. In this case, being as how 2 objections would appear to have been noted, it will go to a vote. The Rules on Senate Debate of Amendments apply as to when the vote will open.

[The Dowager Mod]

I will respectfully urge the senate to pass Ebowed's amendment, I can not speak for the other members of the court, but i for one will not be able to effectively do my job while at the same time being forced to look over my shoulder and perform like a trained monkey in an attempt to please the senate and/or the president because i have to worry about ruling the wrong way everytime a case comes up.

[Brandon H]

I do appreciate this suggestion by Lewis Trondheim, but I would like to remind the legislators that we must apply the constitution, and while I don't know about the other justices, I would invalidate any term limitation upon currently sitting justices as unconstitutional.

How can a Constitutional Amendment be Unconstitutional?

I oppose Ebowed's Amendment, but I think we do need to do something to address the current Justices on the Court. TexasGurl is presiding over a trial and it would not be a good idea to hold a re-confirmation hearing or replace her with someone else while it is going on. The other two have not yet reached a year.

Texasgurl   July 2006
Opebo      October 2006
TCash101   January 2007

I suggest the following:
The term of any justice whose term has exceeded a year at the time of the passage of this amendment shall be considered expired, unless the justice is involved in a trial in which case the term shall not be considered expired until the conclusion of the trial.

[opebo]

What was wrong with that decision?  You ruled that Defarge's vote was not invalid even though it was clear-cut that he did not meet the requirments of posts needed.  That is why I support this bill if changed, some justices proved incapable of sitting on the court.

"Proved incapable of sitting on the court"?  Isn't this just another way of saying you disagree with the justice?  If you disagree with a decision, you just kick the justice off the Cout?

This is precisely why we need lifetime appointments - to prevent the Court being subject to political influence.  The indepencence and impartiality of the judiciary cannot survive this onslaught.

[Ebowed]

I tend to agree with Justices TexasGurl and Opebo.  While I have sponsored this amendment on behalf of the administration, I am skeptical of the wisdom in subjecting Justices to partisan scrutiny on a scheduled basis.  If the proposal cannot be satisfactorily amended to take steps to address this problem, I will not vote for it.

[minionofmidas]

I will respectfully urge the senate to pass Ebowed's amendment, I can not speak for the other members of the court, but i for one will not be able to effectively do my job while at the same time being forced to look over my shoulder and perform like a trained monkey in an attempt to please the senate and/or the president because i have to worry about ruling the wrong way everytime a case comes up.

Well, all I can say is: You don't have to do that to get my vote for reconfirmation.

[Јas]

How about "Judicial Term Amendment"?

Accepted as friendly.

Senators have 24 hours to object to the adoption of this amendment as friendly.

No objection to this having been made known, this amendment passes.

[DownWithTheLeft]

What was wrong with that decision?  You ruled that Defarge's vote was not invalid even though it was clear-cut that he did not meet the requirments of posts needed.  That is why I support this bill if changed, some justices proved incapable of sitting on the court.

"Proved incapable of sitting on the court"?  Isn't this just another way of saying you disagree with the justice?  If you disagree with a decision, you just kick the justice off the Cout?

This is precisely why we need lifetime appointments - to prevent the Court being subject to political influence.  The indepencence and impartiality of the judiciary cannot survive this onslaught.

The decision was not one that could be dissented from, it was clear-cut law.  Gabu admitted the mistake and Defarge even apoligized, and still you voted to let True Dem have the vote.

[Јas]

I will respectfully urge the senate to pass Ebowed's amendment, I can not speak for the other members of the court, but i for one will not be able to effectively do my job while at the same time being forced to look over my shoulder and perform like a trained monkey in an attempt to please the senate and/or the president because i have to worry about ruling the wrong way everytime a case comes up.

In fairness, I don't think anyone would want you to act any differently than normal simply because a re-nomination may be approaching. In fact, anyone thinking that you would put on such an act in order to seek the approval of others, I would suggest would be being quite naive.