Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)

[FairBol]

Not seeing much activity re Politics Fan v The South.  Wondering how close we might be to a ruling. 

[FairBol]

No decision yet, apparently?

[FairBol]

A little decorum here, please.  This is neither the time nor the place. 

[FairBol]

Yes, the Wikipedia attorney that could not figure out if he had been elected or not is the attorney of record on an election case. The next legal ace of the world, ladies, gentleman, and others.

Says the guy who wants his region to secede, but has given no legitimate reason for doing that.  Epic power trip, anyone?

BTW, stop acting like you're trying to be Donald Trump.  You're WAY more of an idiot than he is. 

[FairBol]

Amicus Brief in reply to Amici Fairbol



Thank you.

- OriAr, Chief Counsel of Atlasias Against Election Fraud

That's the best you've got? Apparently, rebuttal is not your strong suit. 

[FairBol]

Going to have to correct the record here. 

I NEVER claimed to have won election.  I simply stated that until some sort of official results were in, I was holding off on conceding.  (Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension, though)

Listen, those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, believe me. In this case I don’t even think you would understand that basic concept.

Here's another concept for ya..."if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". 

[FairBol]

I absolutely abhor about 95% of what Young Texan says these days, but this is the 5%. I completely concur with all his comments regarding Fairbol and his brief.

Wow.  Who crapped in your Wheaties this morning?

[FairBol]

o

Going to have to correct the record here.  

I NEVER claimed to have won election.  I simply stated that until some sort of official results were in, I was holding off on conceding.  (Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension, though)

Listen, those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, believe me. In this case I don’t even think you would understand that basic concept.

Here's another concept for ya..."if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".  

Well, you would be used to being in a kitchen, wouldn’t you.

You didn’t concede, stop coping. Now secondly, I can stand the heat lol. You on the other hand, begging for support, that is something you won’t be seeing me aiding in ever again.

Let’s be honest here, you like to create your own facts. And you also don’t like being called on it, considering you didn’t even quote me directly so I wouldn’t respond.

Fairbol, act your age not your shoe size, please!

Oh really? Then what's this, Big Mouth?



You talk sh**t like you know what it is.  Don't mistake my kindness and friendliness for weakness.  That's not a mistake that you want to make. 

[FairBol]

Going to have to correct the record here. 

I NEVER claimed to have won election.  I simply stated that until some sort of official results were in, I was holding off on conceding.  (Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension, though)

Listen, those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, believe me. In this case I don’t even think you would understand that basic concept.

Here's another concept for ya..."if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". 

You on the other hand, begging for support, that is something you won’t be seeing me aiding in ever again.

Oh boo hoo, some random guy in an online political game says he'll never support me again.  Whatever shall I do? (Sarcasm, of course)

[FairBol]

It seems to me that the Court really hasn't considered my argument in this case.  Allow me to explain. 

As I pointed out in the case thread:

According to Wikipedia, “a pocket veto occurs when a bill fails to become law because the president does not sign it within the ten-day period and cannot return the bill to Congress because Congress is no longer in session”.

The petition says that the statute allowing foreigners to vote was repealed by the Senate, with such repeal taking effect on February 18, 2023 due to inaction of the president. 

Here's what the Fifth Atlasian Constitution says about pending legislation (Article III Section 1, clauses 8-9):

8. All legislation passed by the Senate, save constitutional amendments and resolutions, shall, before it becomes law, be submitted to the judgement of the President. A passed bill shall become law upon the signature of the President or seven days of Presidential inaction.

So normally, upon seven days of inactivity of the president in regards to a bill, the bill becomes law even without his signature. 

Now we come to Clause 9:

9. Should the President disapprove of a bill, it shall be sent back to the Senate. If, after considering the President’s objections, the Senate passes the bill again by a two-thirds vote, it shall become law regardless.

--

Note the part I've highlighted in bold.  It says that "should the president disapprove of a bill, (the bill) shall be sent back to the Senate". 

Well, what if the Senate is not in session at the time of the seven-day expiration?


Although the Constitution doesn't specifically define a "session", RL precedent holds that the term means an individual meeting of the legislative body; "each Congress generally has two sessions". 

And in this case, "meeting" can be construed as meaning a term of the Atlasian Senate, which lasts for about two months (Article III Section 2, Clause 1, sub-clause I).


Referring again to RL precedence, a term is generally considered to expire upon the opening of the next election for that office.  At that point, the previous Senate no longer has the power to make law; such power is held up until the members of a new Senate are elected, and that meeting/session begins.   

This is the meaning behind the phrase "pocket veto"; due to the adjournment of the legislative body, the president cannot return the bill in question.  In that case, such a bill "shall not be a law" (Article I Section 7, US Constitution)



The February election opened on February 17th.  The bill supposedly came into force of law on February 18th; one day after the previous term would have expired. 

So the concern is this; was the Senate in valid session when the bill came into force, or was it not? If the latter interpretation is the correct one, then the bill was vetoed by use of the "pocket veto", and its provisions repealing the ability for foreigners Griff and Thumb to vote never took effect. 

In that case, the defendants win.  My action here is to ask the Court to define when a session ends.

(Apologies for the length of this post) 

[FairBol]

So what's up with this OSR case?

It's MHO that cert should've never been granted here.  Unless the plaintiff somehow is contending that the Senate does not have the power to "discipline...its members", it doesn't seem like he has a legal leg to stand on. 

Article III Section 1 Clause 6 of the Atlasian Constitution makes it very clear that the Senate does, in fact, have this power.
 

The Senate may adopt rules concerning the discipline and expulsion of its members; but no Senator shall be expelled but with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the Senate.

Now you're telling me that the Court might decide in favor of OSR? I get the whole "you need to respond" thing, but geez...are they willing to do away with an important legislative check that the Senate has?

SMH!

[FairBol]

Let me get this straight...you appear to be conceding the argument regarding "discipline and expulsion", correct?

Then what the hell is it that you're actually arguing? Maybe I'm missing the point, but "impeachment" sounds like an attempted exercise in "discipline" to me...?

[FairBol]

Just commenting on the case of ChiefFireWaterMike v LouisvilleThunder.  I think that in this case, the source/availability of the "undisclosed evidence" should be more thoroughly examined.

• First, where did the plaintiff get this information from? Could it have been Photoshopped, or otherwise forged?

• Second, are we totally sure that the alleged "new" evidence wasn't available back in 2021? If not, I would say that the defense has a claim of laches: that is, that the plaintiff knew or should have known about this evidence previously, yet chose not to present it at original trial (and by doing so, gave up the right to re-allege based on such evidence...they "slept on their rights")
  
  (see also estoppel)

Anywho, that's my take right now.