Mideast Assembly Thread

[big bad fab]

Can Giovanni go to the "swearing in" thread, so that the new Assembly is able to begin to work ?

With our Governor's answer to Badger's request after the Superior Court's decision, True Conservative is among us now, don't you think, Dean Swedish Cheese ?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah this is basicly what I'm waiting for to happen, Gio seems to have gone missing. It's been almost a week now. I tried to send him a PM but it didn't work. It's all very strange.

Anyway I guess we cannot wait for him forever.


Since there has been no other nominations, I accept Badger's and Big Bad Fab's renomination of as Speaker.


- As for the bill currently under debate, I disagree that it is necessary. I think there are great advantages in having the office being non-permanent, and will not vote to have it changed.

- First, how many cases have there been this last year exactly before this? Very few! In fact since the Constitution was changed back in February, this recent case is the first one.

Now in Atlasia, although activity has gone up a lot the last months, we still have trouble filling a few offices, basicly because there too many and they have no actual funtion. Mideast Surperior Court Judge is such an office, 50 weeks out of 52. Very few would be willing to accpet that job.

- I know that people here are saying that this position won't be hard to fill, because we have Peter. Are you guys really sure about that? Have you asked him? Because I'm pretty sure that Peter decided he was going to retire from Atlasian politics (I know cause we gave him a pony ) and it is one thing to accept a temporary position, but are you really sure he'd be willing to make a long term comitment?

And if not Peter, who with the right legal experience would be willing to settle for this office permanently? I can think of no one.

- One issue Badger points out is that we'd have much quicker decissions if we had a permanent judge. I disagree. Sure sometimes it might go quicker, but what happens when Peterthe Superior Court Judge is out of town, has a lot of work, or is otherwise occupied in the real world? I'm sure most people here know that the Federal Surpreme Court can take quit a while to actually come to work, since they also have real world responsibilities. With the system we have now on the other hand, the Governor can appiont someone he knows for sure has time for the case.

- Another point Badger makes is that with a permanent judge we wouldn't have to worry about bickering and attacks as soon as a case is filed about wether a certain candidate is biased to one of the sides. (As unfortunatley hapened this time) But let's say we do get a case, where Peter the permanent judge clearly has a bias to one of the sides from the beginning. Then we can't stop and say, hay wait a minute, maybe this person is not the best judge for this case. But if the position is non-permanent the Governor and the Assembly together can both make sure that the case is judged by an un-biased third part.

- The arguments in favour keeping this system I believe outnumbers the arguments opposing it. As we saw in this recent case, our current system works perfectly fine, and even though we didn't have three judges nor a single permanent one, the judge temporarely appointed by the Governor and approved by the Assembly, was able to make fair, unbiased and very professional  decisson. So I fail to see why, there is such a great need to go back to the old way.       

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well considering that this is a question of regional law, not federal, it isn't really in the Surpreme Court's hands as the Governor said, so I think Officepark can make himself pretty comfertable here, as I doubt he's going anywhere soon.

[Peter]

Giovanni's disappearance may be explained by this.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Giovanni's disappearance may be explained by this.

Aha so that is what happened.

As always Peter, it's good to have you around to help us sort things out

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Well I was worried about him. Anyway I agree with Swedish Cheese presiding as speaker for the next two months.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah this is basicly what I'm waiting for to happen, Gio seems to have gone missing. It's been almost a week now. I tried to send him a PM but it didn't work. It's all very strange.

Anyway I guess we cannot wait for him forever.


Since there has been no other nominations, I accept Badger's and Big Bad Fab's renomination of as Speaker.


- As for the bill currently under debate, I disagree that it is necessary. I think there are great advantages in having the office being non-permanent, and will not vote to have it changed.

- First, how many cases have there been this last year exactly before this? Very few! In fact since the Constitution was changed back in February, this recent case is the first one.

Now in Atlasia, although activity has gone up a lot the last months, we still have trouble filling a few offices, basicly because there too many and they have no actual funtion. Mideast Surperior Court Judge is such an office, 50 weeks out of 52. Very few would be willing to accpet that job.

- I know that people here are saying that this position won't be hard to fill, because we have Peter. Are you guys really sure about that? Have you asked him? Because I'm pretty sure that Peter decided he was going to retire from Atlasian politics (I know cause we gave him a pony ) and it is one thing to accept a temporary position, but are you really sure he'd be willing to make a long term comitment?

And if not Peter, who with the right legal experience would be willing to settle for this office permanently? I can think of no one.

- One issue Badger points out is that we'd have much quicker decissions if we had a permanent judge. I disagree. Sure sometimes it might go quicker, but what happens when Peterthe Superior Court Judge is out of town, has a lot of work, or is otherwise occupied in the real world? I'm sure most people here know that the Federal Surpreme Court can take quit a while to actually come to work, since they also have real world responsibilities. With the system we have now on the other hand, the Governor can appiont someone he knows for sure has time for the case.

- Another point Badger makes is that with a permanent judge we wouldn't have to worry about bickering and attacks as soon as a case is filed about wether a certain candidate is biased to one of the sides. (As unfortunatley hapened this time) But let's say we do get a case, where Peter the permanent judge clearly has a bias to one of the sides from the beginning. Then we can't stop and say, hay wait a minute, maybe this person is not the best judge for this case. But if the position is non-permanent the Governor and the Assembly together can both make sure that the case is judged by an un-biased third part.

- The arguments in favour keeping this system I believe outnumbers the arguments opposing it. As we saw in this recent case, our current system works perfectly fine, and even though we didn't have three judges nor a single permanent one, the judge temporarely appointed by the Governor and approved by the Assembly, was able to make fair, unbiased and very professional  decisson. So I fail to see why, there is such a great need to go back to the old way.       

I respectfully disagree, my friend.

Nw that the case is over I can say I do in fact want Peter for the job. But the concerns you raise Swede are all theoretical, whereas the problems of accusations of politics and delay are very real as we see from the current case.

First off, we are blessed with having the most knowledgable, impartial and experienced hand in the Mideast being still active on the forum but retired from active politics. I suspect we can trust to Peter to serve as CJO for a long time. If he has a temporary absence or too close an interest in a case to hear it, THEN we pick a judge ad hoc for that case, but that should be the exception to the rule, not the other way around.

And when Peter is inevitably, someday, tired of the job and wants to step down? Do we really think that he'll be the only qualified Mideasterner not interested in being politically active? (Heck, it might very well be one of us retired from the Assembly at that point). Your concerns are highly theoretical, Mr. Speaker, and it seems far too great an assumption to believe there could be no one to replace Peter after his (likely distant) retirement.

Why not wait and see if there are indeed an utter dearth of qualified replacements for Peter? I suspect we'll find someone quallified. IF, and only if, we wind up truly lacking any qualified canidates because everyone in the Midwest either holds office or plans to run for one, then perhaps we can look to reverting to a ad hoc case by case appointment.

But you know what? I doubt we'll ever cross that bridge. ;-)

[big bad fab]

Again taking the risk to be viewed as a big-government conservative (), I have to say that I agree with our Speaker on many very practical objections he has made, but it's only one position to fill.

And having a permanent one force the judge to remain regularly aware of all the Mideast executive and legislative work.

Besides, I think a permanent judge would be ready to review laws towards the Constitution, as a possible effect of my bill on reviewing periodically our laws.

Which leads me to urge all of you not to forget to finish the debate about my own proposal...

[HappyWarrior]

I believe that having a ME judge is completely necessary and we do have plenty of citizens who would be well qualified I think.

[Purple State]

I believe that having a ME judge is completely necessary and we do have plenty of citizens who would be well qualified I think.

Who besides Peter or ben would take the position?

[Alexander Hamilton]

I believe that having a ME judge is completely necessary and we do have plenty of citizens who would be well qualified I think.

Who besides Peter or ben would take the position?

I'll move to the Mideast.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I believe that having a ME judge is completely necessary and we do have plenty of citizens who would be well qualified I think.

Who besides Peter or ben would take the position?

If MasterJedi ever moves back.

[Alexander Hamilton]

ben is ineloquent and irresponsible.

Einzige and Al would be great choices, and Peter of course.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I would support Al - he's lived in the region a long time, and has a good understanding of the laws.  I don't think he'd want the position though.

[Purple State]

The only consensus would likely be Peter or Al, but I'm not sure if either one would want the job. What is wrong with the current system?

[Badger]

Again, accusations of politics every time a case is filed, plus delay of several days to find a suitable and willing candidate.

The former especially is a major problem.

[big bad fab]

Still no news from Giovanni ?

I've tried to find something on elected Assemblymen who don't take the oath, but found nothing.

It should simply be viewed as an absence, shouldn't it ?
Aren't we able to keep on working ?
Provided the bills gather 3 votes in favour, I think, there is no problem in this.
If Giovanni had already taken the oath but had disappeared, it would have been the same problem, but we would have proceeded.

The point here is that, because it seems to be forced on him and it seems he is not at all responsible, we or the Governor of course can't expell him or certify he resigns, sort of (anyway, there is no rule on this... !).
So, I think we must stick to a 3-vote majority, to be legally sure and sound.

An interesting case, except that we are stalled...
And a session of ONLY 2 months...

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Still no news from Giovanni ?

I've tried to find something on elected Assemblymen who don't take the oath, but found nothing.

It should simply be viewed as an absence, shouldn't it ?
Aren't we able to keep on working ?
Provided the bills gather 3 votes in favour, I think, there is no problem in this.
If Giovanni had already taken the oath but had disappeared, it would have been the same problem, but we would have proceeded.

The point here is that, because it seems to be forced on him and it seems he is not at all responsible, we or the Governor of course can't expell him or certify he resigns, sort of (anyway, there is no rule on this... !).
So, I think we must stick to a 3-vote majority, to be legally sure and sound.

An interesting case, except that we are stalled...
And a session of ONLY 2 months...

As long as Gio doesn't swear in the seat is counted as vacant, and the Assembly's work can continue without him. I'm just waiting for the debate to end before I can open a vote. (Unless anyone makes a new reply on the subject that would be tomorrow morning Central European Time)

Back when I and Officepark was first appointed to the Assembly by Inks, Peter was the only actual member for a while, so as he pointed out to Inks, he could technically have introduced legislation, passed it, and overridden any veto by himself.

And I agree that since it isn't Gio's fault we need to give him more time to figure out a solution to his problem before we start considering expelling.   

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Since there has been no further debate for 24 hours, I move to a vote on the following proposal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Badger]

Since there has been no further debate for 24 hours, I move to a vote on the following proposal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

AYE.

[big bad fab]

AYE

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Again, accusations of politics every time a case is filed, plus delay of several days to find a suitable and willing candidate.

The former especially is a major problem.

I'd argue the latter is more severe.  If we had a standing judge, we wouldn't have to often have cases where we go into the next Assembly period missing an Assemblyman - most electoral disputes would be resolved quicker.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Just a thought?  Shouldnt the amendment be worded with "recall" not "impeachment," since impeachment is never mentioned in the constitution, only recalls are?  Furthermore, impeachment implies legal wrongdoing.  Recall doesn't.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Just a thought?  Shouldnt the amendment be worded with "recall" not "impeachment," since impeachment is never mentioned in the constitution, only recalls are?  Furthermore, impeachment implies legal wrongdoing.  Recall doesn't.

Inks I appreciate that you read through the bills and point out the mistakes you find in them, especially when it comes to mistake in wording and language since a respectable portion of the assembly has a native language that isn't English... but WHY do you always do it after the vote has already started?

 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Just a thought?  Shouldnt the amendment be worded with "recall" not "impeachment," since impeachment is never mentioned in the constitution, only recalls are?  Furthermore, impeachment implies legal wrongdoing.  Recall doesn't.

Inks I appreciate that you read through the bills and point out the mistakes you find in them, especially when it comes to mistake in wording and language since a respectable portion of the assembly has a native language that isn't English... but WHY do you always do it after the vote has already started?

 

The better question is, why do you have to open voting on bills on days that I'm in Detroit watching Central Michigan win the MAC championship?