SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Judiciary (Check and Balances Amendment)

[Ebowed]

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

What is this in reference to, Senator?

[Ebowed]

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[Ebowed]

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?