Confirmation Hearing: Colin Wixted (Associate Justice)

[Colin]

I really don't have any questions that I can think up now. Anyways, you have my support Colin.

Thank you MasterJedi.

I would, in any event, strongly recommend Sen. Wixted's confirmation.

Thank you Emsworth.

[Colin]

I don't have any questions either and think you'll make a fine addition to the ASC.

Thank you WMS.

[Colin]

I have a question for the nominee.

Many of the cases that the Atlasian Supreme Court has dealt with and is likely to deal with in the future have been about the limits of Federal power, either directly or via its relationship with the Regions.  If such a case comes before you in the future, will you be operating from a presumption that the plaintiff seeking to limit the exercise of Federal power has the burden of proving his case or that the Government has the burden of proving that it has the Constitutional authority it seeks to wield?

I believe that the burden is always upon the plantiff to prove his case before the Court however I believe that the federal government, in cases such as these, would also have a burden of proof of showing that it was within their ability to exercise the powers that it wields.

This in and of itself is different from most other cases, such as electoral disputes or civil suits, in which the complete and entire burden of proof is on the platiff bringing forth the charges since he must prove to the Court that some sort of injustice or unconsitutional action has taken place.

However in a case in which the validity of a government law or regulation is in place both the plantiff and the government must bear a burden of proof, the plantiff must bring forth evidence stating that the government has overstepped its bounds and the government must actively put forth the proof concerning that it was within the bounds of constitutional law.

So in such a case, to answer your question Senator, both the plantiff and the defendent government authority must bare an equal burden in order to prove their case. I will not automatically come into a case thinking that the government must show its proof since the regions themselves should hold a majority of the power nor will I come in with the assumption that the plantiff must bear the burden of proof because the actions of the federal government must be within the bounds of the constitution. The most effective way of deciding a case, in my mind, is to act with a clear mind and to deliberate based on the merits of the case at hand.

[Colin]

There are basically two things that the Court is likely to deal with:
1. The scope of federal power, which Ernest has already discussed.
2. Electoral disputes

One part of election law reads as follows:

The voting booth administrator ... shall only count those remaining votes for which he or she is able to make a reasonable determination as to the intent of the voter.

Previous SoFAs have used varyingly strict and loose interpretations of what is a "reasonable determination". The Supreme Court has ultimate power to decide what is reasonable however, so I would like to know what you think fits within the boundaries of what can be counted.

Well to fully answer that question the strict answer would be if I can interpret it the SoFA can as well. I believe that unless the candidates name is either misspelled or can actually be construed to mean seperate people, ie Alcon21 or Colin Bell, that it should count as a vote.

On the current issue of whether a vote for just the presidential candidate should be counted as a ticket I believe that this vote should count as it is easily to determine voter intent however Q strictly said in his instructions on voting that a person must write the full ticket down or their vote would not be counted showing that the SoFA gave instructions to all voters stating that he would not count such ballots.

But going back to the original question if a person's ballot is disqualified when there is not an instruction from the SoFA stating that such a ballot would be disqualified and the intent is easy enough to decern, such as the vote by Dazzleman if Q had not put that rule into the instructions, then I would have to vote to overrule the SoFA and certify the ballot.

[Colin]

I disagree with putting more libertarians on the court. I'll be voting Nay.

I wont decide the issues based on whatever views I will hold, I will decide them based on the merits of the case, the arguement of both the defense and the plantiff and the constitution.

[Colin]

A thank you to all who voted for me.