An Open Letter from the Chief Justice

[bullmoose88]

To those presently clamoring for my impeachment and the Atlasian public at large,


I apologize in advance for distracting you from the normal business of the government but the nature of the discourse relating to judicial affairs requires a response in my humble opinion.  What I am about to say may not please many of you, or make add fuel to the fire I am about to be pushed into, and it may not answer all of your questions, but I feel I need to respond.  This in no way reflects the opinion of my brethren except for where I have paraphrased their public comments.

Several of you are quite unhappy with our latest rulings—rulings I have signed onto.  I understand the disappointment one feels when the court sides the other way.  I also know a different type of feeling when one has certain views on policy but must decide the other way when you are convinced the law or the constitution stands in the way of implementing that policy.  Now, some of you may think that there was no conflict between good policy and good law, but in some instances we may disagree, and have disagreed.  On those cases where it looks like there is some distance between good policy and good law, I am open to reading your arguments.  Tell me/us why we can have the policy yet not offend my/our view of the law.  My questions usually are hints as to where I see a problem either in my view or what I suspect may be a problem in the minds of my brethren.  I often look to question responses or amicus briefs to give me a reason to override my hesitance and fear that I will be creating bad law.  Persuasion does work.  I/We may not always agree, but please give me/us a solid rationale for ruling your way.

I will now address a certain other disagreement with our most recent ruling.  Having a standing requirement as to who can sue for what causes of action has been a desire of mine for some time now, even before I joined the court.  I have always had a problem with anyone suing for something that did not harm them.  At the very least I wanted the petitioner to make a good faith argument as to why they can sue for certain things.  You may not believe this, but my intentions were (and still are) good.  I do not intend to wield standing as a shield to block good law suits, for that use would be redundant to the court’s discretion to take or decline cases depending on the climate.  I merely wish for the proper plaintiff to file the suit.  That’s my view on it.  But if you disagree, then your disagreement and potentially your ire should be aimed at me.

Some of you also take issue with the speed at which the court takes and disposes of cases.  Any guilt you find on this issue also rests with me as it is my job to preside over court deliberations and we do deliberate.  We need two votes to make a decision.  At the start of a case, we might have two votes to reach a certain outcome, but getting those two votes to agree on a legal rationale is a more difficult matter.  Opinions go through several drafts, we argue internally…quite a bit.  We bargain…give and take…to get an opinion two or more people can agree on.  This takes time, and I do apologize if it is longer than it should be, but this court is a careful group in my view.  The time it takes to get to two votes to create “our view” of the law can be a bit long.  If this is not a satisfying answer, then your beef is with me.

I say “our view” of the law, because Brother Opebo is right.  The law really is what a simple majority of us on the court says it is in our view.  Certain decisions of ours really rest upon 2 votes continuing to uphold them.  To change them, you have several options at your disposal.  You may wait for one or more of us to retire.  You may impeach and remove us.  I personally think this would be a rather poor decision as it would inject politics into the judiciary in a negative way.  You may disagree, and unfortunately for me, as Captain Planet has often remarked…the power…is yours.

You could try re-writing the law or constitution and override our decisions.  We aren’t perfect, and I personally would welcome help removing the conflicts I see blocking good policy.

I have tried to approach each and every case impartially.  I have my own views on policy and separate views on the law.   When policy and the law are in conflict, my policy views must yield to my legal views.  I am not here to create, promote, or protect policy for my ideology’s sake.

I hope this response has shed some insight as to how I approach this position but if you are still not satisfied, you may still reply (polite ones appreciated) here or contact me privately.  I will not guarantee a public response.  If you are beyond that point, I suppose you have the proper constitutional measures to remedy the situation.  I like my “job” very much, but will not sully the office should a disgraceful outcome be inevitable.


Respectfully,

Bullmoose88, C.J.

[AndrewTX]

I personally still think you are doing a good job.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I personally still think you are doing a good job.

^^

Honestly few comments have been more disturbing than Ebowed and Marokai wanting your impeachment because you ruled against them on a bill. 

[Хahar 🤔]

I personally still think you are doing a good job.

^^

Honestly few comments have been more disturbing than Ebowed and Marokai wanting your impeachment because you ruled against them on a bill. 

I can think of many more disturbing comments, but that's neither here nor there.

[HappyWarrior]

You've been a great justice Bullmoose and I don't get why anyone would call for your impeachment.

[Alexander Hamilton]

You've been a great justice Bullmoose and I don't get why anyone would call for your impeachment.

Agreed.

Marokai and Ebowed are two of the most disgusting posters here, so it's no surprise that they aren't supportive of a fair and talented individual.

[Hash]

I've seen no problem with your tenure so far, and there's obviously no reason for you to resign/be impeached except stupid partisan-ideological shenanigans.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     You've done a fine job as Chief Justice. While I wish rulings came out more speedily, I understand why they don't & I hope to see you remain on the Supreme Court as long as you wish to continue serving.

[Rowan]

BullMoose has done an admirable job. I will oppose any articles of impeachment.

[Lief 🗽]

I very, very much disagree with the ruling on the gay rights bill, but I understand that you and I have different interpretations of the constitution, and I really see no reason to get too mad at you for that. However, I think the standing decision is really, really stupid, just because the game works radically different from the real world, where standing rules are needed. We're all just playing around here; none of us are actually affected by most of these laws, and so I think that introducing standing requirements will just result in fewer court cases and a less extensive body of constitutional interpretation, both of which are unfortunate.

[afleitch]

I agree in that there should be standing rules simply to allow the game to be played to it's fullest extent. But I think you're doing a good job given the circumstances.

[Marokai Backbeat]

First of all, some of the posts here about me have been incredibly insulting and unfair. You've turned a simple issues of me thinking that the Supreme Court could do alot better of a job and turned it into a partisan and personal issue when I never wanted it to be that.

I'm not upset that they ruled against what I liked in one case, I'm upset because a number of things.

1. That it takes forever to get rulings anymore and it's absolutely absurd. There is no reason a court case should take a month on a fantasy government forum. There's three people on the SC and these cases shouldn't take more than a couple weeks to deal with at most. Arguments are usually clear-cut and simple, and there is no need to complicate a fantasy political forum endlessly.

Seriously, you guys took an entire month to decide whether or not presidential pardons were allowed or not. How could it possibly take that long to decide this? Other court cases have been similar, with PS routinely pressuring you guys to give your ruling over the GM issue when he was pressing it some months back. There is absolutely no excuse for this.

2. You have no been very "present" on the court. In fact, it seems like Spade runs the court despite the fact you're the Chief Justice! You two never seem to disagree, and you always end up looking like Spade's legal sidekick. It gives the impression that you don't put alot of time into things and you just sign onto Spades work for whatever reason.

3. Yes, the ruling about "gay treatment" organizations. I disliked this ruling very much, in fact, I found it disgusting and terrifying. But I am not threatening to file articles of impeachment because I didn't like a ruling, that would be absurd. Hell, I want the President to have the power to pardon individuals, and I even helped Bgwah form what arguments he made in that case. If this was about rulings, I would not be complaining, because I got the ruling I wanted there, dismissing his case!

But that is not what this is about. This is about the fact that the ruling was riddled with horrifying precedent. This is not my opinion, it is what you, again, signed onto. Buried into the legalese was this:

First, many religions, entities and individuals, including parents, continue to believe that homosexuality is an aberrant practice and use ex-gay institutions in an attempt to eliminate such thoughts.  Regardless of whether one supports or opposes this view, it is without question that this belief is justifiably founded in a reasonable historical tradition.  Therefore, the Act’s punishment of “attendance” essentially forbids the parents from practicing the tenets of their religion.  Furthermore, if the Court allowed lawmakers to pass laws which forbade “attendance” at ex-gay institutions, similar logic could undoubtedly be used to pass laws to restrict the speech and assembly rights of those who feel that homosexuality is an aberrant practice.  We will not go down that road.

The ruling also entertains whether homosexuality is a medical disorder or not.

In short, the ruling opened a very scary can of worms, where religious traditions are untouchable if the Senate tried to do anything, or protect it's citizens from dangerous behavior. As Ebowed said, would Jehovah's Witnesses now have the power to refuse blood transfusions for the children, effectively killing them, on the basis of religious objections? According to this ruling, yes, they can.

And that's what I'm upset about, not the ruling itself.

As for everyone else here, shame on you for not giving the pro-impeachment folk a chance to speak out opinion on the matter, and anyone who tried to make this a personal or partisan issue disgusts me. This is not a time for people to be nicey-nicey and overlook faults on the basis of personal affection nor is it the time for you to hate the idea of impeachment on the basis of who's pushing for it.

I thought most of you here were objective enough to do that, or above it, but apparently not.

[Ebowed]

I really admire the ability of the hacks here to so skillfully switch from defense to offense in a matter of hours.  That is indicative of excellent political sense.

Either way, if everyone in Atlasia thinks that the Supreme Court is doing a fantastic job, then they deserve what they get.  I just wouldn't want to be the poor bastard filing a lawsuit (again).  I can't speak for any other plaintiffs, but waiting for weeks on end for a resolution to an issue is hardly appealing.

Marokai, facts and logic will not work here.  The tables were turned too quickly.  I doubt the Chief Justice will ever be required to explain his agreement with the Junior Associate Justice that parents have an all-encompassing right to kill their children if their religion says so.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'd also like to state that this has very little to do with Bullmoose outside of the fact that he is Chief Justice and signs onto Spade decisions. It is Spade that is my target, and should I file articles of impeachment, Spade will be who they're against.

[DownWithTheLeft]

LOL at Marokai for telling people not to make petty partisan statements when none of these were and he constantly tries for cheap points and to criticize RPP statements

[afleitch]

I believe there is a genuine greivance here and would like to ask those who favour the impeachment of Sam Spade to lay out, together their reasons for doing so. Much has been lost as myself (and others) assumed the move was against Bullmoose.

[Sam Spade]

I'd also like to state that this has very little to do with Bullmoose outside of the fact that he is Chief Justice and signs onto Spade decisions. It is Spade that is my target, and should I file articles of impeachment, Spade will be who they're against.

Go ahead.  I wait for yours and Ebowed's lengthy discourse on tolerance and reason.

In general, I must fully defend Brother bullmoose88 from any accusations in this manner.  He is a fair, kind-hearted and even-minded judge who listens to all arguments, whether good or bad in his eyes.  If you want to make the criticism, keep it to me, because I know that's who you want to go after.

As for specific criticisms -

1) Opinions take time to write, especially those outside of the voting context where the statute is usually clear.  Plus, there are often issues with other parts of the statute or Constitution that we must address to reach the final conclusion.  Simply put, it is not as easy as it looks.

2) bullmoose88 is quite correct in how are discussions are done.  Often times, who writes the opinion is the person who has the time to formulate our discussions into a readable form.  That, btw, ensures that you are really not waiting a long time for an opinion.  I must admit that in recent months, at least, that person has been me, especially where we've dealt with the real 'thorny' stuff.  However, there are plenty of opinions where I may have written most of the opinion but certain paragraphs have been included and written by others on the Court.  As bullmoose88 quite obviously points out, you need two to get a majority.

3) As for the recent controversial opinion on the LGB Dignity Act, all I will say is this: Atlasia has a bill of rights that is similar to the US.  This fundamental right exists in Supreme Court precedent in the US as well based on identical provisions in the bill of rights, having been created in the decision Pierce v. Society of Sisters.  We may argue over the rationale for this right (I would) but there is good policy behind its creation, namely as a protection of certain individual rights from government intrusion.  Moreover, depending on the context of the law challenged, those who so vehemently oppose its creation would find it quite beneficial

4) As for standing, when I originally came on the Court, I would have sided with opebo and Peter.  I have actually 'evolved' a bit on that front.  The trouble was finding a rule that made sense in Atlasia (because the Constitution is quite different in this situation) and would not be that limiting.  We'll see how it goes here.

[afleitch]

What was concerning about the LGBT Dignity Act decision was the Constitution implicity offered recognition of differing sexualities in Article VI 14.

[Sam Spade]

What was concerning about the LGBT Dignity Act decision was the Constitution implicity offered recognition of differing sexualities in Article VI 14.

I'm not going to be spending my time defending court rulings, but IMO this one is rather simple.  I don't disagree that Article VI, Section 14 protects the rights of those of 'differing sexualities', but the limit of its scope is rather clear.  In other words, the rights of 'differing sexualities' are protected, but only within the context of voting or candidacy.  The 15th Amendment of the US Constitution, which this is roughly based on, is read similarly.

See bolded:

No person shall be denied their right to vote or candidacy on basis of nationality, race, religion, sex, sexuality, age or political affiliation.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

While I do not necessarily agree on his decision, I will say that I continue to stand by my decision to nominate Sam Spade to his position of Supreme Court Justice.

Impeachment is not a way of removing justices whom we disagree with.  It's for use in cases of severe misconduct.

I'll also remind everyone that the NLC did try to get a law passed that would subject SC Justices to renomination.  Just saying.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is not a matter of simple disagreement, this is a matter of Spade and the court overall not doing it's job properly.

Do you realize how long it took to settle these cases? It took an entire month, not to deliver a ruling, but merely dismiss the case, settling absolutely nothing! These ridiculous standing requirements are not necessary in Atlasia, and only serve to draw out and unnecessarily complicate the process, and ultimately accomplish zilch.

Spade practically runs the court. This we pretty much know. He seems to write the opinions, which Bullmoose (the CHIEF Justice) simply signs onto almost always. These "standing" requirements seem ridiculous and unfairly applied. What was Peter's standing to sue the government over the LGBT Dignity Act? What was Purple State's standing to sue over the Game Moderator issue? Further, how could anything possibly directly harm someone in a fantasy political board anyway? How could anyone have standing to sue for anything?

Moderate, I respect you a great deal, but here I must seriously question your judgment. What he weaseled into this ruling was sickening homophobia veiled in pretty legalese.

I'm going to have more to say on this on the other board. I will more thoroughly explain why I want to impeach Justice Spade there, because this entire thread is a farce.

Bullmoose, stop trying to defend Spade, this isn't about you. He can't use you for cover in this fight.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Moderate, I respect you a great deal, but here I must seriously question your judgment. What he weaseled into this ruling was sickening homophobia veiled in pretty legalese.

While I do not dispute that Spade is likely not a "friend of teh gays," I do not believe his decision was rooted in "sickening homophobia."  And I certainly do not believe that Bullmoose, a far more socially moderate voice, would join in on a decision that was blatantly homophobic.

Spade clearly has a set of beliefs, and he used the legal system and judicial interpretation to make a decision that supports his beliefs. Maybe there's a legal stretch here, but it's really no different from the kind of legal stretches that judges make all the time.  Swap the vote totals and circumstances around—do you think we'd have had the courts line up differently in Bush v. Gore if it was Gore v. Bush instead?  Would the conservatives who lined up with Bush in the first case line up with Gore in the bizarro world case?

Further, I can understand your frustration regarding the pace at which the court moves.  While I certainly would have preferred that cases move forward at a more significant pace, I also realize that discussion of these cases take place "behind closed doors," so to speak, which makes conversation a bit more difficult.  I do generally believe that the court tends to be much more cautious in its research than any other branch of government.

This aside, some measure of controversy is not necessarily a bad thing.  Courts are not always perfect—that's why we have a system of government that allows the branches to check each other.