Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)

[Dereich]

Will there be a decision on Justice NCYankee recusing himself before the Court decides tp proceed with cases. There is conflict of interest in hearing the case(s) or not, so he shouldn't even participate in the decision to hear cases. 

The only decision to be made is by NCYankee himself. There is no constitutional requirement that a judge recuse himself and unless he declares that he will do so he has to be counted as a decision-making justice.

[Poirot]

It's not about a general party bias or support of one candidate. A Justice is a canddiate involved in contested election results. It's hard to argue a Justice is independent in that case.

Furthermore, the SoFE who oversaw the election is also a running mate of the Justice.

(As I said after the Justice kept his role as party chair, the appearance of independance of the court is not preserved and he could have to recuse himself from cases because he is party chair at the same time. I would ask he recuse himself automatically from electoral cases because as party chair he has an interest in election outcome but the current situation is even more problematic on the independence of the court.  

[Bacon King]

I have created an opinion poll on this issue:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=250387.0

[Poirot]

Will there be a decision on Justice NCYankee recusing himself before the Court decides tp proceed with cases. There is conflict of interest in hearing the case(s) or not, so he shouldn't even participate in the decision to hear cases. 

The only decision to be made is by NCYankee himself. There is no constitutional requirement that a judge recuse himself and unless he declares that he will do so he has to be counted as a decision-making justice.

This is an example of why I have lost trust in our institutions.

Maybe the court will decide not to hear cases like it did when I wanted them to rule on something.

[Dereich]

Will there be a decision on Justice NCYankee recusing himself before the Court decides tp proceed with cases. There is conflict of interest in hearing the case(s) or not, so he shouldn't even participate in the decision to hear cases. 

The only decision to be made is by NCYankee himself. There is no constitutional requirement that a judge recuse himself and unless he declares that he will do so he has to be counted as a decision-making justice.

This is an example of why I have lost trust in our institutions.

Maybe the court will decide not to hear cases like it did when I wanted them to rule on something.

That's one of the downsides you have to accept with with a co-equal judicial branch; there's (in practice) nobody who can judge the judges for their decisions. It makes it all the more imperative that people who can be trusted to make good judgement calls both inside and outside cases are elevated to the Court.

[Adam Griffin]

That's one of the downsides you have to accept with with a co-equal judicial branch; there's (in practice) nobody who can judge the judges for their decisions.

I most certainly will be judging the judges from afar.

[Poirot]

I'm glad the Court has speed up its process. It gave permission to proceed in half a day. When I wanted the court to rule on something, it took them seven days before telling they decided not to hear the case.

[Хahar 🤔]

Xahar - Invalid (VP choice not clearly interpretable)

This is, uh, self-evidently moronic.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Xahar - Invalid (VP choice not clearly interpretable)

This is, uh, self-evidently moronic.

google translates it as "arcanpoilyan", not "kingpoleon"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Plz delete yr account wulfric

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Xahar's cast plenty of peculiar ballots in the past and I'm fairly certain they were counted.  There's no reason that shouldn't be the case here, as far as I'm concerned.

Xahar - Invalid (VP choice not clearly interpretable)

This is, uh, self-evidently moronic.

google translates it as "arcanpoilyan", not "kingpoleon"

It's a good thing Google Translate is always right.

No but is this seriously just a question of how to transliterate a person's username

[Clyde1998]

So - we have four lawsuits filed now...

Bacon King vs SoFE - link
Potus2036 vs SoFE - link
dfwlibertylover vs SoFE - link
Oakvale vs SoFE - link

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I will be representing myself in this case.

Excellent news; we could all do with a good laugh right now.

[Lachi]

So - we have four lawsuits filed now...

Bacon King vs SoFE - link
Potus2036 vs SoFE - link
dfwlibertylover vs SoFE - link
Oakvale vs SoFE - link

Oakville case was thrown out, I believe.

[Kingpoleon]

I volunteer to testify before this trial if anyone wishes.

I am the person particularly involved in the votes themselves.

To summarize: I was criticized in both cases, for which rpryor discounted both. However, both votes had the full name of the ticket, myself and Blair. I intend to ask the Court to please allow me to testify.

[Poirot]

Kingpoleon, if uou want to say something to the court, you don't have to wait for the court to ask you to testify, that might not happen. Just file a brief in the court case thread if you want to advocate for your ticket (unless there is an official lawyer representing your ticket and he asked not to make public statement).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am amazed that nearly 50% of Bacon's King argument rests on a defense of previous non-enforcement, which just a week ago he advocated so forcibly against when making the case for a runoff over a first preference winner.

With all do respect to BK and the former Secretaries, I must say I find that argument completely weak. You don't need precedent to justify the enforcement of an explicit ban on something, and failure of past Secretaries to do so is matter of their competence in office, not some not novel legal machinations on Rpryor's part.

Likewise the notion of their being necessary some kind of intent for an attack to be an attack and an attack to be campaigning. It was by their own expressed intent, to express disapproval of the VP choice, ie part of a ticket. That constitutes negative attack on said ticket (because you elect them by the ticket), and irregardless of how they voted and completely in tune with BK's own posted definition of the term, constitutes a form of campaigning. The only way to campaign in Atlasia is by posting statements for or against someone.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If the standard is "will it influence people" I assert that it is highly unlikely anyone was influenced by BRTD and Hashemite's insult of Kingpoleon, because they were simultaneously voting for him at the same time.

if anything, it's more likely that a viewer will think "wow, the blair/kingpoleon ticket is such a good choice that they're even getting the votes of people who hate them!" No one will decide against voting for a candidate based on hesitant ballot commentary from someone who still voted for the candidate in question anyway.

So you might say the statement had the effect of campaigning for them?  

I really wish they ballots had been looked at in August. However, as Bacon so eloquently articulated last week, previous non-enforcement does not justify future non-enforcement, otherwise law be damned and we would not have had a runoff.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I do not have a position on Bacon King v. SoFE, partly because I haven't taken the time to review the law and see what the right answer is, but this interpretation of our Constitution:

Secondly, the constitution gives the Congress the right to set requirements for activity. It does not state posting activity and it doesn't limit what kind of activity it could be applied to. Therefore, Congress has broad authority to define such activity and could therefore define both lack of activity or engaging in certain other activities (lack campaigning in the voting booth) as being prohibited and still consist of a "requirement for activity" as stated in Article I, Section 4.

genuinely disturbs me. This basically amounts to saying, 'activity means whatever the Congress says it means,' which opens the door for a train of abuses that could potentially disenfranchise huge swaths of the population. Speaking as the person who actually wrote Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, I can assure you that this is not what the framers intended.

For the record, I don't think the SoFE's actions violate the Constitution, but I don't think the reason he gave is the correct one either. "Requirements for activity" refers to a very specific measure of participation on the forum at large, and not to an ethereal concept that Congress is free to mangle and redefine at will.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I do not have a position on Bacon King v. SoFE, partly because I haven't taken the time to review the law and see what the right answer is, but this interpretation of our Constitution:

Secondly, the constitution gives the Congress the right to set requirements for activity. It does not state posting activity and it doesn't limit what kind of activity it could be applied to. Therefore, Congress has broad authority to define such activity and could therefore define both lack of activity or engaging in certain other activities (lack campaigning in the voting booth) as being prohibited and still consist of a "requirement for activity" as stated in Article I, Section 4.

genuinely disturbs me. This basically amounts to saying, 'activity means whatever the Congress says it means,' which opens the door for a train of abuses that could potentially disenfranchise huge swaths of the population. Speaking as the person who actually wrote Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, I can assure you that this is not what the framers intended.

For the record, I don't think the SoFE's actions violate the Constitution, but I don't think the reason he gave is the correct one either. "Requirements for activity" refers to a very specific measure of participation on the forum at large, and not to an ethereal concept that Congress is free to mangle and redefine at will.

I think at this point, the section is going to need to be amended regardless of what the outcome is.

Do keep in mind though, that Congress would still be bound by the rest of the Constitution including equal protections, so Congress would be in a difficult position to pass a law disenfranchising voters with undue burdens (which a prohibition on campaigning is not), without also running into other Constitutional barriers.

[Clyde1998]

When is the Supreme Court likely to be in a position to confirm the verdicts on the remaining cases?

[Clyde1998]

When is the Supreme Court likely to be in a position to confirm the verdicts on the remaining cases?

[Leinad]

Yankee and Blair worked hard on their campaigns. Truman's doing a fine job, but this long wait (no doubt increased by one of the Justices abruptly deregistering) is getting silly. I ask the Court to figure this stuff out sooner rather than later.

[windjammer]

Just to be clear about something,
The Supreme Court does all it can to be as quick as possible. It's just extremely when basically 1 SC deregistered, an another one is missing, and an another one recused himself. We are 2 and we're not intentionnally waiting because "it's funny to have no president xD". It's just extremely difficult to end up having a ruling when we are only 2 and that there is no  tie breaker.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm doing all I can to find a replacement for Dereich, which will hopefully alleviate some of the problem.