Talk Elections

Sponsor: TJ in Cleve

TJ you have 24 hours as you know to advocate for this. If I forget to mention this on a bill, assume it applies because it certainly will, most likely. :P

In Atlasia having lifetime appointments does not make much sense because we run on a condensed time scale from real life. A 3-year term is the equivalent of serving 36 years in real life. But here justices do not age correspondingly fast, so it can put the Supreme Court position essentially out of play. The scarcity of cases the Supreme Court regularly hears coupled with long tenures makes the court a mostly forgotten aspect of the game. Having a term limit would cause some level of turnover and interest in the office, but I also want to make a limit long enough that  the Supreme Court is not politicized.

I like the concept of this bill, but I think that even three years is a bit long for someone to be holding the same position.

Amendment:

Well, I'd agree with Scott that if we're going to do this, it needs to be 1 year. To give people an idea, with this amendment, someone who got appointed when I joined would just be facing possible reconfirmation this year. That's a looong time. ;)

My administration again comes out in opposition to the politicization of the Court.

I support Senator Scott's amendment proposal for this quite strongly.

Sponsor Feedback: No Valid Entry
Status: beep!

I am very reluctant to embrace this. In the RL I can assure you that it would only get passed over my dead body. :P


Only the perspective of this as a game and the inherent differences in that is making me somewhat open to being convinced here.

If this is a measure designed to promote greater interest in the affairs of the judicial branch, I think it fails to address the real problem.  Indeed, this is not the first time we have considered fixed terms for judges; it was largely defeated on the basis of opposition to politicization of the Court, and there is merit to the argument that the prospect of renomination, or lack thereof, could alter the interpretations of justices in legal questions.

Accepted as friendly.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object

---

My openness to being convinced took a big hit with Ebowed's post, just so the proponents of this know where I am right now. ;) If someone is suppose to sell me on this they aren't doing very well. :P

Actions of the judiciary are inherently political, and interpretations of the law subjective in their correctness. Though it is convenient for us to think of judges as being impartial, they like all the rest of us are vulnerable to a wide array of biases and prejudices. It is an inescapable aspect of the human condition. To be clear, I don't want to see the court filled with hacks, but terms provide for us a means to encourage accountability to the general public, provide opportunities for government to reappraise which people are best qualified for the posts, and ensure those who serve on the bench are of the highest degree of competency, approach their duties with an excellent work ethic, and are culturally representative of the masses.

Will the process be flawed and to one extent or another politicized? Probably. But the process already in place is quite vulnerable to becoming that way as well, and in my humble opinion is prone to concentrating too much power for too long a time into the hands of certain individuals. That is not to suggest I would oppose any renewal of the commissions served by honorable Justice Ebowed or his colleagues. But there may come a day at some point down the road where it honestly seems the court would benefit from some new blood, so to speak. Surely this is not an unreasonable check to place on the power of the courts, no?

I am not worried about checks on the power of the court, so much as preservation of the court as check on the legislative and executive branches and not becoming that of a rubber stamp to legislative or executive fiat.

I'm not a big fan of all of this together. Although, I'm sure it would make some of the Presidential elections more intersting knowing that during that specific term, they can change up the court.

Still, I think it's better the way it is.

The amendment has passed.

I've decided to oppose this.  There is a difference between expanding the Court and forcing Justices to be reappointed.  This bill would require Justices to essentially rule in a way that would please potential future Presidents, and I cannot support that.

Would you change your opinion on this amendment if we were to, perhaps, prohibit justices from being reappointed for a period of time?

I'd consider it.  My number one goal is avoiding the politicization of the Court, whether that involves judicial elections or forcing Justices to cater to the political desires of a President.

TJ, your thoughts?

I am open to ruling out reappointments, but only if we make it longer than a year. It wouldn't necessarily need to be quite 3 years, but I think a year would be too short if we're going to forbid justices from staying on multiple terms.

Amendment:

Two years is an extremely long time; I am comfortable with an eight month interregnum.

What a terrible idea.

Can we impeach justices? It seems like that is all the power the Senate should have.

Indeed you can (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_I_of_the_Third_Constitution#Section_2:_Impeachment), though it's rather difficult to do. (I didn't get far when I tried to impeach Sam Spade from the court..) When we drafted the new constitution I'm pretty sure we flipped the requirements from majority senate/supermajority public vote to supermajority senate/majority public vote, so it's a little easier than it used to be, but it can be done even for a Justice if it's really necessary.

Sponsor Feedback: Unknown
Status: Pending

Wouldn't the phrasing, "A Supreme Court Justice's term shall last one year or until the Justice decides to retire," basically translate into, "A Supreme Court Justice's term shall end whenever the Justice wants," in practice, or is this simply confusion on my part from ambiguous language?

Respectfully, I also do not see the point of having a lapse between re-appointments be so very long (two years). Personally, I think four months would suffice unless we intend to have each seat up to be filled at exactly the same time every cycle.

Why not just add two new Justices?

I'm going to call this one unfriendly because I don't think it would affect the politicization problem it was intended to solves at all.

How long should it be, then?

I thought the point was to get rid of re-appointments? All this does is limit them to three terms.

Oh, I thought we were allowing re-appointments after a certain amount of time.

I'll just withdraw my amendment, then.

Here's a version that would eliminate re-appointments so that political considerations are not part of Supreme Court decisions:


Also, with structural amendments like this one, I believe it is best to have them take effect several months later so that there is no political incentive beyond support and dissent, so I'm going to propose the following amendment:

I should have mentioned this earlier, but if we prohibit re-appointments entirely, couldn't that potentially lead to a shortage in potential appointees if there are fewer people available to serve on the Court?

No because they could be appointed again later under the amendment I offered, just not consecutively.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object


Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object

Yet another attempt by some of the right-wingers to politicize the court.  Couldn't you fellows have the decency to wait a bit before yet another of these transparent attempts?

One can only hope there are three Senators who respect the constitution, as there were last time round.

Don't you mean four? It takes atleast four to ensure failure. And there were five no votes on the last one if memory serves me.

No, a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds margin of victory (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_VII_of_the_Third_Constitution), which is 66%.  So seven, not six.

If three people vote no, that leaves seven to potentially vote aye which is 70% in favor of passage. If four votes no that precludes passage because the best the amendment can get is 60%.

Oh yes, you're quite correct. I apologize - it is 4 am here!  4 no votes to kill it.  7 required for passage.  Just checked, it was an encouraging 5 who voted to defend the constitution last time round.

To repeat my concern from earlier since nobody seemed to notice, I cannot support the amendment until the language in Section I, Subsection 6 is addressed. There is nothing yet there to specify a justice cannot serve for as long as he or she wants before resigning instead of honoring the two-year limit of their term.

I simply can't see myself supporting this amendment, or any other. I don't favor putting term limits for on our Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia was giving an interview on FNS today and said in reference to the President's criticism of the Citizen's United case and the pressuring in the speech prior to the Health care ruling, after much pushing from Chris Wallace of course, "What can he do to me, I have lifetime tenure? The very reason we do is because the court sometimes has to deny the elected majority it's desires because they are unconstitutional and thus we are shielded from the whims of politics"

Slight paraphrasing in the quote of course because I don't have a transcript of it in front of me, but you get the idea.

The amendments have passed.

As Redalgo pointed out the wording of Item 6 needed to be changed to make it so that the term ends either after two years or retirement, not both.

Here's the newest amendment:

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object

The amendment has passed.

What next?

I am non-patiently waiting here.

I am requesting a final vote.

Senators a final vote is now open here so please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Nay

Nay

Aye

NAY

Aye

Nay

Nay

Aye

This has enough votes to fail, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

Vote on final passageo f the Judicial Term Length Amendment:

Aye (4): Clarence, Redalgo, Scott and TJ in Cleve
Nay (5): AndrewPA, Ben, NC Yankee, sbane, and Seatown
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Wormyguy

This has failed.