Confirmation Hearing: Oakvale for Associate Justice (Confirmed)

[Napoleon]

If someone's going to be on the Court they're going to have to deal with this stuff. If they can't handle a few questions then they shouldn't have the job. It's what these threads are actually designed for. If people are actually so stubborn and full of themselves that they're willing to just ignore perfectly legitimate questions purely for the sake of personal grudges, that is their (and everyone else's) loss.

I have an issue with the nature of your questioning. With retrospect and public opinion in mind, any answers related to previously ruled cases will be meaningless. I would advise the nominee not to answer any questions aimed at using wedge issues to distract from the spirit of this confirmation hearing. We should be deciding whether or not his record shows good judgment, not focusing on silly questions that are unfit for such a determination of character.

And just how would deciding such be done appropriately then, if past cases can't be opined on?

Senator Oakvale has a lengthy record of service available for us to observe the quality of his overall judgment. Questions directed at the nominee ought to seek insight into how the nominee's judicial philosophy, approach, and knowledge of statute and case law make him worthy of confirmation. Questions should not work to bring political wedge issues to the forefront. The questions, as I explained earlier, are of limited use.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes. I understand what the honorable Senator-elect is saying. Though, I must once again state the people's opinions on what counts as an inappropriate wedge issue may differ. I for one thought Marokai's question, regarding the nominee's stance on the relevance of a plaintiff's "standing" in whether or not a case should be considered, to be perfectly reasonable and legitimate.



hmm, I thought we were promised a response by now. We might just have to use an injunction afterall if none are provided by end of time tomorrow morning. Such requires a second as well.

[Napoleon]

Yes. I understand what the honorable Senator-elect is saying. Though, I must once again state the people's opinions on what counts as an inappropriate wedge issue may differ. I for one thought Marokai's question, regarding the nominee's stance on the relevance of a plaintiff's "standing" in whether or not a case should be considered, to be perfectly reasonable and legitimate.

I agree, my concerns were those regarding specific rulings. Anything to do with court procedure is fair game.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Due to the lack of response and the soon to be expiration of debate time, I hereby motion for an injunction to extend debate time for 48 hours beyond the current deadline.


This motion requires a second by a sitting Senator. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Due to the lack of response and the soon to be expiration of debate time, I hereby motion for an injunction to extend debate time for 48 hours beyond the current deadline.


This motion requires a second by a sitting Senator. 

Seconded.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The motion is adopted, debate time has been extended.

[Oakvale]

Oops, apologies, everyone, unintended absence. I'm writing my answers now.

[Oakvale]

To address Marokai's question regarding my opinion of some past cases -

Atlasia v. Southeast

Mr. SPC's argument strikes me as fairly tortured legal reasoning, based on the conceits that the government isn't recognizing the "dixies" produced as legal tender per se, and that "circulating" currency is significantly different from the production thereof to be Constitutional.

As Alfeitch points out in the discussion, the "dixies" are, effectively, vouchers. So, since they're being produced by an outside entity, it's technically within the limits of the Constitution. But the circulation (and the withdrawal of dollars from circulation) of the "dixies" by the regional government as amounts to tacit, if not explicit recognition of the currency by the government.

More obviously, the FoCA itself uses "currency" to describe the "dixies" twice -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...meaning that the defense's argument hinges on the idea that "circulating" currency produced by an outside company is meaningfully different to "issuing". I find this to be a stretch. To quote the relevant passage from the second Constitution -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if we're to accept that the FoCA doesn't grant de facto legal recognition of the currency as legal tender, the amendment falls afoul of  - "no Region may issue Coin or Currency...".

I must say that SPC's argument is fairly impressive in its audacity, but I'm not convinced. If I'd been on the Court at the time, I would have voted to overturn the amendment.

On standing to sue, I think this is an example of something that makes sense in the real world and much less in Atlasia. It's not like we're exactly plagued with frivolous lawsuits, and it adds an unnecessary hurdle for people with legitimate grievances to deal with before they can file suit.

Responses to UNEPSE v. Northeast , SPC v. Atlasia and Peter v. Atlasia coming up shortly...

[Oakvale]

UNEPSE v. Northeast

To premise this for those of you who don't want to read through the whole thread, the case concerns a ruling made by the Northeast Chief Judicial Officer (CJO) which declared a strike by the Union of Northeast Public Sector Employees (UNEPSE) in response to the passage of the Practical Labor Policy Act.

The union alleged that the PLPA violated its collective bargaining rights as gauranteed by the Constitution by Article VI, Section 10, [1] which states -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's my opinion that this clause is incompatible with the PLPA, and the Act is, thererfore, unconstitutional. Given that, the question is whether the UNEPSE has the right to strike in response to violation of its constitutional rights. I'll explain my reasoning, and why I disagree with Justice Sam Spade's partial dissent.

In his ruling, the Northeast CJO charged the union with breach of contract, and fined the union for expenses incurred accordingly. However, no written contract existed - a notable and probably unavoidable problem with Atlasia's... not-real-ness - and, as such, we have no way of knowing what the imaginary, implied contract mandated. It seems absurd, then, for the CJO to charge the union with breach of contract when no contract existed. How are we to know this unspoken, implied contract didn't contain a clause allowing strike action?

If no contract exists, there can be no breach of contract. Thus, the UNEPSE employees who striked in response to the passage of the PLPA were simply excercising their right "to organize for the purpose of colective bargaining", as provided by Article VI, Section 10 of the then-Constitution. It's my opinon, then, that the fines levied by the CJO upon the union should have been overturned, and I agree with the Court's decision to do so.

For argument's sake, though, even if we're to assume that the implied contract carried legal weight, if a union can't strike in response to the passage of a bill infringing on their very right to strike - and, in effect, have any bargaining power whatsoever - what can they strike in response to?

I won't go into too much detail on why I think the PLPA's unconstitutional - although if a Senator wants more detail on my thinking, I'd be more than happy to provide a longer analysis. Suffice to say that Article VI, Section 10 places regulation of collectie bargaining firmly in the hands of the federal government, specifically the Senate.

The clause of the PLPA allowing the government of the Northeast to replace striking workers with non-union employees at a whim stands out, as it effectively renders striking useless, and makes "collective bargaining" a rather meaningless term. While the PLPA doesn't out-and-out outlaw union action, but it's a clear effort to intimidate public sector employees into not striking - just take a look at the clause providing for massive fines on public employees who strike. While the PLPA doesn't directly impact the employees of the UNEPSE, as it only applies to new contracts, I think it's well within reason that the UNEPSE strike in response to legislation that infringes upon their rights to collective bargaining, and would render the union toothless.

In his dissent, Justice Sam Spade has a more narrow interpertation of the right to organize, arguing that it only covers individual rights, not collective ones. I disagree - It's my opinion that if a clause allows for "collective bargaining" there's an implicit recognition of collective rights. The Justice's contention is that if that was the intention, it would have been explicit rather than implied. This might be something the Senate could clarify - we've had a string of recent amendments, and this issue could arise again.

Again, if necessary I'll go into more detail on my thinking re: the PLPA, but I want to move on to the other cases.


[1] Actually Article VI, Section 11 in the current Constitution, but it's identically worded.

[Oakvale]

SPC v. Atlasia

This case concerns the Constitutionality of the Protection of Public Health Act (PPHA), which made it illegal to smoke in buildings "open to the public".

SPC (again) charged that there was no Constitutional basis for such a law, citing the relevant passages, specifically from Article 1, Section 5, which gives the government the power to

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also relevant is the 22nd Amendment to the second Constitution, the "Public Interest Amendment" which expanded upon the government's power to regulate in the interests of public health. Most relevantly, it gave the government power...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As far as I can tell, the justification for this Act would have to come largely from the 22nd Amendment. My interpreation of Article 1, Section 5's two relevant clauses isn't broad enough to cover a smoking ban -

To take the 13th clause, for example -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While then-Justice Marokai makes a compelling argument for the alternative meanings of "demonstration", it's clear to me that this clause refers to medical research. I'd rather not get bogged down in semantics, but it's unavoidable. While a use of force is a valid meaning for "demonstration", I find it implausible in the context of the clause. I'm not a staunch literalist by any means, but the interpretation here is too broad, in my opinion. I disagree with the first part of the Court's ruling

However, the 22nd Amendment provides enough justification for the PPHA that I'd have voted to uphold the Act.

The 22nd Amendment allows the government to protect the public health by "making such regulaions as shall be necessary for the protecton of those in employment". Since there's a well-established danger from second-hand smoke, this Amendment, in my view, allows for the prohibition of smoking in, as the Act states, restaurants, public transportation, cinemas, etc, etc.

In short, I disagree in part and agree in part with the Court's ruling. While I don't find sufficient grounds in  Article 1, Section 5 to allow for a smoking ban, I do think it's permissable under the 22nd Amendment, and, thus, I would have voted to uphold.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

tick tick tick tick............................

Well time is up on this so I'll go ahead and open the final vote on confirmation under my authority as Dean, with no PPT or sworn Veep.

Senators, final confirmation is now at vote, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.


Aye

[Antonio the Sixth]

Aye

[Napoleon]

Aye

[Oakvale]

Aye. (shocking!)

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Aye

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Aye

[bgwah]

aye

[Ban my account ffs!]

Aye suppose.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Aye

[HappyWarrior]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You know, Happy, it is a little late to be rethinking your reelection plans.



Final vote on confirmation of Senator Oakvale to the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Aye (9): AHDuke99, Antonio V, bgwah, Fuzzybigfoot, Napoleon, NC Yankee, Oakvale (bye bye ), shua, and Snowguy716
Nay (0):
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Officepark


The Senator has been confirmed.

[opebo]

I don't know if this is the appropriate thread, but I'd like to welcome and congratulate Oakvale.