SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Judiciary (Check and Balances Amendment)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[bgwah]

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.

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.

Thank you for your prompt answers.

I do have to ask a follow-up question: The Atlasian Constitution grants the Senate the power of impeachment. It does not, however, require proof of criminal activity. In fact, it makes no mention of wrongdoing at all. In some ways, the original "impeachment" process outlined in the Third Constitution - the outcome of which is decided by a public poll - is more like a recall election initiated by the federal legislature.

Oakvale's Trial, Not Turnout Amendment eliminated the referendum requirement in cases in which a Senate supermajority votes to impeach an official. However, it did not introduce any requirement that impeachment be justified through facts and evidence, or even charges of wrongdoing.

With all of this in mind, I think it's worth approaching this process with some doubts about what the Atlasian meaning of "impeachment" really is. If it's really more of a recall process, or some kind of recall/impeachment hybrid, than a desire to "shake up" the Court (or even blatantly political reasons) would seem to be rationale enough for an individual Senator or citizen to vote in favor of impeachment.

Here's the question: Why is this interpretation of Article I, Section 2 incorrect? Can you cite any precedents in Atlasian history that argue in favor of your interpretation of the proper use of the impeachment process?

I can't recall anyone actually being impeached before. I think the President has usually just removed inactive cabinet remembers in the past, and a Justice has yet to be impeached. Although Marokai tried impeaching Sam once for not liking gay people, IIRC. But Sam was not impeached because having unpopular political opinions is not an impeachable offense. And Sam was even accused of letting his homophobia affect his decisions and still was not impeached. Nobody has accused me of letting my personal politics affect my decisions, and they can't because there is no evidence of such.

[bgwah]

I served six terms in the Senate. I probably wrote dozens of federal laws, and amended many which are critical to the game's functions (such as those governing crimes and elections).

When the Senate confirmed me, this was seen as more of an asset than a liability.

Are there any cases the Senate believes I made a somehow biased ruling?

[bgwah]

Kal introduced his proposal first, so I'd prefer to begin with his tenure amendment.

Hopefully we can get some of the Justices to testify here on the merits of the proposal, along with Kal. I'm a supporter of the amendment myself, with the caveat that terms should be long enough to protect judicial independence (say, two years). I'd also prefer to allow Justices to serve consecutive terms if they are reappointed.

I don't know, Nix --- having opinions created a movement to have me impeached...

[bgwah]

Then I would have the following things to say:

-Opebo is the only Justice to have had an exceptionally long tenure, and of course he would have to be exempt as an incumbent (as the proposed amendment does in fact seem to do)
-In the past, Associate Justices have been elevated to the Chief post because they're often the most qualified person for it. This is something that might become more difficult with the amendment.
-A Justice may not interpret things as strictly as they should if they know they will be forced off the court by an arbitrary limit in the near future.