It is regrettable that the Senator wishes to waste everybody's time over what appears to be a personal vendetta.  Frankly it is unacceptable behavior for someone of his stature and position.

  There's no vendetta, Mr. Chief Justice.  I am not the only one who's voiced concerns, nor have I based my case for impeachment entirely around the delays; it was merely on point worth mentioning.  The case is built more around the inappropriate participation in political debates by other members of this Court.

Of course the second half of my post was rather facetious, but I maintain that there is absolutely nothing wrong with participation in political debates by members of the Court - surely, when I cast a ballot on a referendum the other day, I was voicing my opinion on an issue that has been presented to the Atlasian public.  The medium in which I choose to do that does not seem particularly relevant, as I think most people here are able to understand that when one of us speaks out on an issue, we are not issuing rulings.  I know that you understand that, so what exactly is the problem?

Speaking of 'unnecessary delays', perhaps it is time we impeach Senator Benny for his sloth-like response.

That's the problem with fabricated narratives - they break down under even light scrutiny.  If getting into disagreements, using crude language and making opinions known were indicators of an inability to serve on the judicial branch, practically every Justice prior to our Court would have had to deal with the same articles of impeachment.  It is regrettable that the Senator wishes to waste everybody's time over what appears to be a personal vendetta.  Frankly it is unacceptable behavior for someone of his stature and position.

Yes

Tired.

I woke up at 5am on about four hours of drunken sleep, stayed in bed debating whether or not I have saved enough money to quit my job until 5:33am, when I changed into my work clothes and ran to the train station to make my train to the bus stop, then ran to the bus stop to catch my 5:59am bus to work, began work promptly at 6:20am, finished work at 5:53pm, got driven home by a coworker, and have been drinking since putting my clothes in the washing machine at 6:36pm.  I'm on track to get about four hours of drunken sleep.  Rinse & repeat.

Only three more days until the weekend, though, which is nicer than four.

Didn't the Dem nominee for Governor support the amendment?

IIRC he voiced reservations about the amendment's impact on IVF and emergency contraception but supported it regardless.

[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?]

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?

Actually, I did not assume we were discussing impeachment from a legal standpoint, and so I reject the premise of the question, as I provided my response more from philosophical grounds.  Obviously, if any of us had committed any crimes, we would not be presiding over the trials and convictions in the first place (that's what a conflict of interest looks like, not ruling on a piece of legislation on which you have previously voiced a citizen's opinion).  It wasn't illegal for the House of Representatives to impeach President Clinton, but it was hardly 'proper' either, if you catch my drift.  If it is anyone's desire to 'shake up' the Court they can and should pursue constitutional amendments to that effect rather than targeting the members of the Court themselves.

I however think than if a Justice involved into lobbying/public campaign for or against a bill or an idea (like bgwah with dog meat), he should recuse himself should a case about that law reach the Court.

Are the Justices are in agreement with my statement?

Not necessarily, as I can certainly see a scenario where, for example, one opposes the legalization of dog meat sales but would not be able to strike it down on any constitutional grounds.  I haven't read the legislation or Senate debate in question, but at a starting point I wouldn't see anything inherently unlawful in an attempt by the Senate to deregulate this activity although as a citizen I would not be in favor at all.  If Justice bgwah is passionate about the subject, certainly it is his right as an Atlasian to make his voice heard, and I don't believe that there is any substantiation to the allegation that this would negate his ability to approach the issue as a Justice with the utmost neutrality and professionalism.

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.

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.

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

What is this in reference to, Senator?

I've attempted it, I've made jokes about it, I've long treated it as a nonserious issue.  Last weekend, a friend actually went through with it and I've got to admit, it completely altered my perspective.  What I have generally viewed as a noble and courageous act, from a purely detached, unemotional lens suddenly became a heinously thoughtless, extraordinarily selfish act of indulgence.  It seems like the worst possible thing you could do to people who care about you - and, no matter how bad it gets and feels, there are people who care.

I'm glad you are okay, not just because I like you, but also because I couldn't wish the ramifications of a suicide on my or your worst enemy.

And, ultimately, regardless of how much you may let yourself down, or think you have let others down, I hope you never lose sight of just how irreplaceable you really are.

I haven't forgotten about this, I'm just without an Internet connection at the moment, hopefully resolved soon!

Hey guys, my sincerest apologies for the inexcusable delays here; I can assure you all that we have been discussing this case and will get back to you as soon as possible.

1 napoleon
2 Matt from vt
3 maxque
4 Mr x
5 Alfred Jones

The Chief Justice delivers the unanimous opinion of the Court.

Statement of Facts

Article V, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution states in part that

A person may become a registered voter if they have attained eighteen (18) posts and have been registered at the forum for at least seven (7) days.

Article VIII, Clause 11 of the Southeast Constitution, however, states in part that

All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the region with 50 posts or more shall have an equal right to vote in any election.

Ruling

Independently of the outcome this discrepancy may incur on the results of any regional elections conducted within the Southeast, or indeed the intended scope of relevant disputed statute, this inconsistency is plainly unconstitutional and reflects an attempt on the part of the Southeast to usurp the authority of the federal government to determine voter registration standards.  As these minimum requirements have been ratified by national referendum through the constitutional amendment process, they apply to all regions due to the simple fact that voter registration is handled federally.  The Southeast does not have its own Secretary to handle regional voter registration, nor should it; under the logic that the region may bar federally registered voters from participating in its elections, it would also be able to register voters who are not yet eligible to register federally.  Rather than allow for the potential complications that may result in a dual system of voter registration, the constitution makes it clear in no uncertain terms that this is a duty to be undertaken exclusively by the federal government.

We rule the 50 post voting requirement in the Southeast constitution to be in direct violation of the constitution and accordingly strike it down, and order any voters disenfranchised by this unconstitutional provision to have their ballots counted.

Any gun control measure is better than nothing, and I also support a ban on all guns.

New Jersey (Small)
Obama 45.37%
Romney 52.93%
Other 1.70%

New Jersey (Large) (91.41% of votes cast)
Obama 59.46%
Romney 39.33%
Other 1.21%

Pennsylvania (Small)
Obama 40.00%
Romney 58.23%
Other 1.77%

Pennsylvania (Large) (71.21% of votes cast)
Obama 56.80%
Romney 41.87%
Other 1.34%

Maryland (Small)
Obama 42.54%
Romney 55.13%
Other 2.33%

Maryland (Large) (79.00% of votes cast)
Obama 67.14%
Romney 30.79%
Other 2.07%

Delaware (Small)
Obama 46.63%
Romney 52.04%
Other 1.33%

Delaware (Large) (60.88% of votes cast)
Obama 66.30%
Romney 32.23%
Other 1.47%

District of Columbia (All Large)
Obama 90.91%
Romney 7.28%
Other 1.81%

West Virginia (All Small)
Obama 35.53%
Romney 62.27%
Other 2.20%

Kentucky (Small)
Obama 32.37%
Romney 65.93%
Other 1.70%

Kentucky (Large) (25.90% of votes cast)
Obama 53.34%
Romney 44.95%
Other 1.71%

Tennessee (Small)
Obama 30.53%
Romney 67.96%
Other 1.52%

Tennessee (Large) (37.85% of votes cast)
Obama 53.02%
Romney 45.41%
Other 1.58%

North Carolina (Small)
Obama 41.49%
Romney 57.28%
Other 1.23%

North Carolina (Large) (41.48% of votes cast)
Obama 58.03%
Romney 40.68%
Other 1.29%

South Carolina (Small)
Obama 45.20%
Romney 53.59%
Other 1.21%

South Carolina (Large) (48.33% of votes cast)
Obama 42.90%
Romney 55.60%
Other 1.51%

It is quite the well written and well presented brief, no doubt.

A ruling should be ready shortly.  Thank you everyone for your patience.

Results for 2008

For the purposes of this exercise, any county where over 100,000 votes was cast is considered large.

Maine (Small)
Obama 53.88%
Romney 43.18%
Other 2.94%

Maine (Large) (38.12% of votes cast)
Obama 60.15%
Romney 37.42%
Other 2.44%

New Hampshire (Small)
Obama 55.88%
Romney 42.40%
Other 1.72%

New Hampshire (Large) (52.90% of votes cast)
Obama 48.51%
Romney 49.96%
Other 1.52%

Vermont (All Small)
Obama 66.57%
Romney 30.97%
Other 2.46%

Massachusetts (Small)
Obama 72.20%
Romney 24.91%
Other 2.89%

Massachusetts (Large) (93.66% of votes cast)
Obama 59.87%
Romney 38.37%
Other 1.76%

Rhode Island (Small)
Obama 58.25%
Romney 39.47%
Other 2.27%

Rhode Island (Large) (53.76% of votes cast)
Obama 66.53%
Romney 31.61%
Other 1.87%

Connecticut (Small)
Obama 53.33%
Romney 44.83%
Other 1.84%

Connecticut (Large) (81.11% of votes cast)
Obama 59.16%
Romney 39.77%
Other 1.07%

New York (Small)
Obama 50.00%
Romney 47.85%
Other 2.16%

New York (Large) (78.95% of votes cast)
Obama 66.88%
Romney 31.81%
Other 1.31%

I hope this is not to become an exercise where we simply give the defense as many shots as they require from as many respondents as they require.

Relax, I just haven't had time to work on the case, and given that there had been no defense of the law in the given time frame it didn't seem especially egregious to allow that opportunity to go forward.  Nonetheless, we will take Magistrate Dibble's thoughts into consideration as we formulate our opinion.

I recall an interest in geography as a child, but I've always come here to nurture my obsession with politics.

I do love the maps though.

I won't have time to work on a ruling till the weekend actually, so we can continue to accept amicus briefs.

[Writ of Certiorari]

Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Writ of Certiorari
The Atlasian Supreme Court grants certiorari to hear this case.

Schedule
Petitioner has seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00AM EDT on Saturday, April 13 2013.

Respondent has an additional forty-eight hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00AM EDT on Monday, April 15, 2013.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5:00AM EDT, April 15, 2013, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need.

A possible period of argument (Q&A) may be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.

because it is wrong to diet on your birthday

Why?  Is it wrong to abstain from shooting meth and going to the prostitute on your birthday too?