SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Judiciary (Check and Balances Amendment)

[MaxQue]

Chair: MaxQue
Members: TJ

Agenda: Check and Balances Amendment

Next point: ??

Done points:
56th Senate:

55th Senate:
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES' IMPEACHMENT HEARING
Judicial Tenure Amendment

Powers:
This resolution shall create the Senate Committee on the Judiciary as a special committee of the Senate tasked with the duties of overseeing the administration of justice in the nation’s legal system and have jurisdiction over-

    Federal courts and judges, and local courts in the Territories and possessions
    Impeachment hearings
    Constitutional amendments
    Immigration policy
    Criminal and civil law enforcement
    National penitentiaries
    Patents, the Patent and Trademark Office, copyrights, and trademarks
    Protection of trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies
    State and territorial boundary lines

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Agenda: ?? ??

Maybe my amendment to establish judicial tenures?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yeah, I'd like my impeachment proceedings to go first.

[MaxQue]

Yeah, I'd like my impeachment proceedings to go first.

Procedure doesn't seem to be clear on that, but do you wish to proceed one after each other (which would take 3 weeks), or doing the three impeachment proceedings concurrently?

If option 1, by which Justice do you want us to begin?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Unless explicitly prohibited, concurrent consideration should be fine, but I would recommend that if votes are conducted on the matter that they be done seperately (by which I mean three questions on the ballot concurrently as opposed to single yes/no deciding all three, not that you have to hold three seperate votes on after another as that would be Crazy! ).

[MaxQue]

Unless explicitly prohibited, concurrent consideration should be fine, but I would recommend that if votes are conducted on the matter that they be done seperately (by which I mean three questions on the ballot concurrently as opposed to single yes/no deciding all three, not that you have to hold three seperate votes on after another as that would be Crazy! ).

I'm quite aware of that, wanting to impeach one, but not the other ones is quite possible. The 3 three are impeached, but it doesn't mean they are all guilty or not guilty. The answer may (or may not) be more nuanced.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Procedure doesn't seem to be clear on that, but do you wish to proceed one after each other (which would take 3 weeks), or doing the three impeachment proceedings concurrently?

If option 1, by which Justice do you want us to begin?

Begin concurrently.

[MaxQue]

Procedure doesn't seem to be clear on that, but do you wish to proceed one after each other (which would take 3 weeks), or doing the three impeachment proceedings concurrently?

If option 1, by which Justice do you want us to begin?

Begin concurrently.

I suppose you want the testimonials of the Justices. I'll PM them and open the process tonight (sorry, bad timing, currently moving).

[MaxQue]

So, I notified the Justices, I think we can begin.

I hereby open the hearing on impeachments on Justices bgwah and opebo and Chief Justice Ebowed.

I'll repeat the introdiced impeachment articles:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I of the Third Constitution, as amended by Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Amendments is outlining the Impeachement procedure:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, I'll make a short introductory statement before beginning. I would like to think everyone here for their time on that process.

From what I understood during my conversations with various Atlasians, the whole problem which lead to this procedure is the North Carolina Yankee vs. Atlasia trial. It took 36 days in total and 24 days between the parties resting their case and the decision.

By Atlasian standards, that's a long time and by the words of the Chief Justices himself, those were "inexcusable delays". So, this led to a debate in the Atlasian political world, which led into a Senator introducing those articles, another one wanting to establish judicial tenure and another one moving to introduce activity requirements for judges.

I think there is a consensus here than that case happened under less than ideal conditions (even if the case was the most boring case ever, according to a Justice).

The question than we need to answer here is: Do the delays during North Carolina Yankee vs. Atlasia are worthy of impeachment?

Eventually, the Senate will ask to ask itself it some reform are needed, but that's not the main goal of that hearing in my mind, through I would welcome any comments of the Justices on the currently proposed reforms or on any which crossed their mind. Quite naturally, the goal is than we never see again the delays experienced during North Carolina Yankee vs. Atlasia.

That's why we will do in the coming week.

Now, I would like than Senator Ben justify the articles he introduced, please. I suppose than Justice can also justify why they shouldn't be impeached.

Fellow members, please ask questions to the witnesses, please.

Does the committee want to hear any other witness than the three Justices and Ben?

[bgwah]

I was going to wait until you asked me questions, but I thought these posts in the analysis thread were very interesting:

I'm sorry, but as it's been a while since my last Senate tenure, do things are always that slow? It's seems we're in a very slow mode.

I think than the PPT is having computer problems, which cause delays. Indeed, it's very slow.

Because you guys are saying we should all be impeached for the same reason, essentially. Should the entire Senate be impeached, too? Just food for thought.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

My case for impeaching the three Justices is simple.  Through unnecessary delays on an issue of Constitutional importance, and through their inappropriate political activities, these Justices have lost the right to serve on this Court.  In order for the Court to maintain its place in Atlasian government, we need to remove these Justices and move on.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I know I'm not a member of this distinguished committee, but nevertheless I'd like to address my colleague's statement, since it's a matter of grave importance.

This was a screw up, but things happens. Since we don't have activity requirements, it's pretty much punishing offense that is not existing. As far as I remember this was a sole such incident. Impeaching the entire court seems to be hugely disproportional response to one mistake.

Regarding political activity, I agree the Court members should refrain from this but is there any law requiring maintaining a total political neutrality? Again, offense that does not exist.

Ben, I'm glad you're cosponsoring my amendment to establish judicial tenure. We should start with fixing laws, instead of committing our efforts at what is undoubtedly going to be a very long and a very divisive fight.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Kal, two things.  One, I am more than content to be persuaded out of voting against all three Justices; indeed, I do currently lean against impeaching the Chief Justice, and only slightly lean towards impeaching Justice Bgwah.  I introduced all three articles because I can see a case for any of the three, so I introduced the articles.  As to the political aspect, while there may not be a law, it's a fairly commonsense proposition.  Justices Bgwah and Opebo have involved themselves in political debates, and taken harsh tones far beyond what is appropriate for members of the Court.

As to your other point, Kal: I don't believe that this process will impact consideration of the Tenure Amendment that we are co-sponsoring.

[opebo]

...through their inappropriate political activities, these Justices have lost the right to serve on this Court.

Utter nonsense - I've only voted.

Justices Bgwah and Opebo have involved themselves in political debates, and taken harsh tones far beyond what is appropriate for members of the Court.

I defended myself when attacked in regards the court!  Are we expected to sit like dodos and wait to be made extinct?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

You're expected to abstain from personal attacks, from insulting your opponents for attempting to "politicize" the Court, and Bgwah was actively involved in the debate over the legalization of eating dogs.  That's unacceptable, and it's inappropriate.

[opebo]

You're expected to abstain from personal attacks, from insulting your opponents for attempting to "politicize" the Court, and Bgwah was actively involved in the debate over the legalization of eating dogs.  That's unacceptable, and it's inappropriate.

I'm not so expected, nor is it unacceptable, nor is it inappropriate, politicizer.  You're merely loading on your personal petty tastes and resentments as if they were some constitutionally stipulated criteria - they're not.  Show a little humility and respect both for the constitution and our respective offices.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

You're merely loading on your personal petty tastes and resentments as if they were some constitutionally stipulated criteria - they're not.

That's where you'r wrong, Opebo.  I am not making a personal crusade out of this.  Although this is, in fact, an example of what is wrong with your style, an why impeachment is a valid option.

[bgwah]

Questions for each of the three Justices:

• What, in your view, are sufficient grounds for the impeachment of a Justice of the Atlasian Supreme Court?
• What are sufficient grounds for the impeachment of any federal official?

Impeachment is removal for unlawful conduct. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to impeach any executive or judicial officer of the federal government.

It would help if the pro-impeachment Senators specified what unlawful conduct we are being impeached for.

Some of what has been stated so far (that we have political opinions) seems fairly preposterous to me. That is not illegal. This is an entire forum about politics. Of course we have opinions. And even within the context of the game, votes are public, and we must vote or face deregistration (and thus removal from office).

Anyway, I do believe that for any office inactivity is a valid reason to consider for impeachment, though there really aren't any specific requirements for us yet (I see that their is a bill being debated concerning this right now).

Another difficulty you face arises in the fact that our branch of the government conducts much of our business in private. Numerous PMs were sent back and forth during the time frame where there were not a lot of public posts.

I do regret that I did not post more updates in the thread, but I don't believe that is impeachment worthy. I also don't believe someone having internet troubles is impeachment worthy.

[MaxQue]

I have a simple question.
Are long delays like in NCYankee vs. Atlasia are expected to happen again or it was a one-off occurence due to various concurring issues which shouldn't normally happen again?

[bgwah]

I have a simple question.
Are long delays like in NCYankee vs. Atlasia are expected to happen again or it was a one-off occurence due to various concurring issues which shouldn't normally happen again?

It will not be a regular occurrence. And if it does become one and I am responsible, I will resign.

[Ebowed]

through their inappropriate political activities, these Justices have lost the right to serve on this Court.

What is this in reference to, Senator?

[Ebowed]

I have a simple question.
Are long delays like in NCYankee vs. Atlasia are expected to happen again or it was a one-off occurence due to various concurring issues which shouldn't normally happen again?

I would expect not.  Presently I do have a very demanding real life schedule, which is part of the reason I sought out this particular branch of service, because I like to stay involved in the game while not necessarily having the time to legislate or campaign, etc.  This is not to say that I don't check the forum; I think my record demonstrates that I generally have a quick response to any court related issues in particular, but my Internet was only reconnected at home on the weekend, after over a month without, which by the way was dreadful, haha.  I would have liked to notify the parties involved that there would be delays sooner than I did, but at the time I had limited access to the Internet through my phone which I mostly used for banking, and it was only when I checked the forum at a friend's house that I became aware of the situation ensuing from these delays.  Regardless of these personal hurdles, all of us on the Court were communicating regarding the case and even if it took longer than desired for us to provide a ruling, I believe wholeheartedly that we operate in a fair and nonpolitical manner.  I do regret the delays regarding this particular lawsuit but they are hardly indicative of a general pattern, which is why I find these impeachment proceedings indeed puzzling.

Regarding the fact that my colleagues may have inserted themselves into policy discussions, the idea that this would be grounds for removal from office is, for me, a total nonstarter.

[Ebowed]

Questions for each of the three Justices:

• What, in your view, are sufficient grounds for the impeachment of a Justice of the Atlasian Supreme Court?
• What are sufficient grounds for the impeachment of any federal official?

Corruption, unwillingness or inability to perform the duties required, etc.  Certainly inactivity can and would fall into the latter category, although given that this only occurred with one case it hardly seems like it would apply.  I do believe that we had a lawsuit just before the NCYankee one and it was resolved within a reasonable time frame.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Regarding the fact that my colleagues may have inserted themselves into policy discussions, the idea that this would be grounds for removal from office is, for me, a total nonstarter.

It's hard for me to believe that bgwah and opebo were the only SC Justices in the entire history of Atlasia to engage in policy discussions while in office.

So again, as there's no law prohibiting such activity, there's no offense committed. If there's a proposal to ban Justices from certain activity, I could support, but this is a hypotetical issue that cannot be applied in these hearings.

I believe the only plausible ground for impeachment is a recent delay. Not strong argument, since it's an isolated case.

[opebo]

• What, in your view, are sufficient grounds for the impeachment of a Justice of the Atlasian Supreme Court?

Proven unlawful conduct.
 

• What are sufficient grounds for the impeachment of any federal official?

The same.