Local Office of IDS Emperor Scott - Salisbury, NC (Back in Business)

[Napoleon]

You have some great ideas and are situated to continue the progressive legacy the Northeast is known for. You have my endorsement and full support, though I will definitely miss working with you in the Senate should I be reelected.

[Napoleon]

Congratulations, Scott. You'll be a great Governor. I might have to retire back to the Northeast.

[Napoleon]

Endorsed.

[Napoleon]

Did HockeyDude drop out?

[Napoleon]

Did HockeyDude drop out?

I didn't see his declaration.

Hasn't he missed enough votes to be expelled from the Assembly? It'd be pretty embarrassing if we re-elected someone after that.

The alternative is me.

Elections with five candidates are boring.

[Napoleon]

Wow, I didn't realize we were going to have such a crowded contest for the Assembly.  If anyone could help me count the ballots this weekend, I'd really appreciate it.

I will do it.

[Napoleon]

Wow, I didn't realize we were going to have such a crowded contest for the Assembly.  If anyone could help me count the ballots this weekend, I'd really appreciate it.

I will do it.

Thanks a bunch!

No problem! As my presidential term winds down, I owe it to you all to make myself useful on your behalf.

[Napoleon]

The Northeast is currently voting on a proposal to move the capital location from NYC to Buffalo, which has long been in need of economic stimuli.  Simfan originally came up with the idea to move the capital from an area that's not as oriented for business.

I did! Why can't I ever get my due credit on this? It's like the people who claim I oppose the vague concept of "game reform" that don't even know how many reforms they enjoy today actually came from my Senate work. Actually its not like that at all, but it still sucks! Look at me everybody, I have ideas!!

#attentionwhore

[Napoleon]

Anyone want to go out for coffee later?

I am the forums most prolific coffee consumer so you know I am down!

[Napoleon]

After careful consideration and taking the opportunity to hear what Northeasterners think about my future plans, I have decided to seek an unprecedented third term as Governor of the Northeast Region.

My campaign will officially launch after the Assembly election.

Andrew aka Big Daddy served three consecutive terms, out of like a million total.

[Napoleon]

I will be writing in the four Northeastern at large candidates just in case.

[Napoleon]

Wait, I thought you were staying as Governor.

Nope.  I suspended my gubernatorial campaign last week.

so if your "exploration" doesn't work out, are you going to go back to the gubernatorial race?

[Napoleon]

I'm a little shocked that you're willing to support the impeachment of three tenured and knowledgeable justices that have been involved in private deliberations on what is undeniably the most trivial court case in Atlasian history. While their work has been slow on this case, it has not impacted anything in a significant manner. I've always found a politicization of the Court (even if its politicization is largely based on the personal motivations of a few unnamed individuals and nothing more) to be something to be avoided.

I know Ben and Marokai don't like anyone on the Court, and they made that perfectly clear over the years, but what about the Vice President's inactivity delaying the Senate business and causing delays for committees and all that? I don't see impeachment being discussed there, where the actual game functions are being impacted in a meaningful way. I'm not suggesting that we should impeach the Vice President, I think this slip up is entirely forgivable, but in the context of flinging around impeachment proceedings, why start with the harmless Supreme Court? It just doesn't make sense to me. What are your thoughts Governor?

Anyway, I don't have anything bad to say about the veep, I just want to emphasize my personal opinion that the impeachment of the Justices is unfair and baseless, especially when considered in the context if Atlasia's day to day operations. When the Court needs to be timely, they always have been (Tweed vs DoFE for example).

[Napoleon]

Napoleon, I already explained, I think, pretty articulately why I think the justices should be impeached.  Supreme Court justices currently have the most trivial role out of all of us, and I think the very least they can do is acknowledge their positions publicly by participating in cases when the occasion arises.  I'm aware that Ebowed said the case was being discussed privately, but unfortunately, that's not helpful to the rest of us.  If the Senate doesn't impeach, it would be giving the OK to a recurring problem in this game.

I assure you, I do not support the removal of the justices for personal reasons.  I've been long against that kind of politics.  And in fact, I rather like opebo, but I don't approve of his inactivity as Supreme Court Justice.  As the President said, there are legitimate criticisms to be addressed here.  My stance is not in the context of some personal crusade, and I don't want to be brought into one, either.

And it's no problem, Marokai.

In what other Court cases were discussions among the Justices made public? You're literally saying that we should impeach the Justices because a long standing precedent of private deliberations "isn't very helpful". That's a gross misuse of the impeachment procedure.

Meanwhile, the Senate's work is delayed and we are voting on committees that should have been dealt with two weeks ago and not a peep out of anyone. That office, too, is criticized for its perceived triviality and yet its most important task was muffed completely. Is that worthy of impeachment?

And I ask what this recurring problem in the game is. The Supreme Court, in its current composition, has been swift in reaching decisions where time was of the essence. Do you have any examples otherwise that show this is recurring?

[Napoleon]

Napoleon, I already explained, I think, pretty articulately why I think the justices should be impeached.  Supreme Court justices currently have the most trivial role out of all of us, and I think the very least they can do is acknowledge their positions publicly by participating in cases when the occasion arises.  I'm aware that Ebowed said the case was being discussed privately, but unfortunately, that's not helpful to the rest of us.  If the Senate doesn't impeach, it would be giving the OK to a recurring problem in this game.

I assure you, I do not support the removal of the justices for personal reasons.  I've been long against that kind of politics.  And in fact, I rather like opebo, but I don't approve of his inactivity as Supreme Court Justice.  As the President said, there are legitimate criticisms to be addressed here.  My stance is not in the context of some personal crusade, and I don't want to be brought into one, either.

And it's no problem, Marokai.

In what other Court cases were discussions among the Justices made public? You're literally saying that we should impeach the Justices because a long standing precedent of private deliberations "isn't very helpful". That's a gross misuse of the impeachment procedure.

Meanwhile, the Senate's work is delayed and we are voting on committees that should have been dealt with two weeks ago and not a peep out of anyone. That office, too, is criticized for its perceived triviality and yet its most important task was muffed completely. Is that worthy of impeachment?

And I ask what this recurring problem in the game is. The Supreme Court, in its current composition, has been swift in reaching decisions where time was of the essence. Do you have any examples otherwise that show this is recurring?

No, it isn't.  I don't have a problem with justices discussing the terms of the case privately, provided that they make the effort to carry out the deliberations in public, as well.  And you know, I don't have a problem with someone being late on something, provided that they have a reasonable excuse.  Quite honestly, I'm completely surprised to see you calling people out for inactivity less than six months after your unfortunate experience as president.  If you want to see what the problem is, open your eyes.  I'm not just talking about the Supreme Court when it comes to the inactivity problem.  We've all seen it.

Im not calling anyone out for inactivity here. I am trying to make a legitimate inquiry about a puzzling double standard. The leading proponents of this impeachment attempt are known to have personally disliked the Justices for longer than you and I have been here. The same ones are ignoring the more impactful inactivity of their own buddy.

I agree that inactivity is a problem, but impeachment is a solution worse than inactivity. Is no one willing to consider the broader implications of one President and one Senate appointing an entire Court? Under what justification is impeachment the first answer? As far as I am aware, neither you, Ben or Marokai made any inquiries or suggestions to the Justices that they publish their thoughts or reach a hasty decision.

When in the past did the Court discuss things like this publicly? Never. So why would we impeach them because of that? Send them a nice, or even a not-so-nice, PM and move on. Politicizing the Court is never a good idea, and openly advocating for an entire Court to be replaced at once is far worst Senator than inactivity.

[Napoleon]

Their job has never been to post all their thoughts publicly before reaching a decision, which they still haven't reached. Again, when they have needed to make a ruling they have been timely. If you want them to do their job differently from how its been done, ever before, then you should tell them before you try and kick them out of office. I don't think that's unreasonable but hey.

If its not for personal reasons, why aren't any other inactives being targeted for impeachment? I already mentioned the fact that we are two weeks late setting up Senate committees. I don't hear a word from anyone about that. I understand the Court is composed of people that may be considered low hanging fruit in the dystopian Atlasia of today but that doesn't mean they should be the first target of impeachment, all things considered. Do you think the failure to start the Senate on time is an impeachable offense?

And I think the idea that we ought to impeach the Honorable Justices goes a step further and calls into question their character. Opebo maybe a narcissist (Haha) but anyone who knows Bgwah and Ebowed knows they care deeply about this game and have done more for it than anyone calling for their impeachment. They would certainly resign if they weren't interested in doing the duties required of them.

[Napoleon]

If other articles of impeachment are brought up, I, of course, will consider them.  In fact, go ahead.  Draft some of those articles, and then we all can have a fair conversation about them.  Please, by all means, do so.  But it should go without saying that the job of elected officials is to work in the public square.  That is the only way we can be assured people are doing their jobs.  The job of a senator is to consider the evidence in front of them and reach a verdict, not meddle in petty affairs.  I don't even know why I'm being pressed on something I was never involved with.  As far as I know, this is between you, Marokai, and the judges in question.

I don't do rivalries with people here anymore.  This thread wasn't intended to be about someone's childish grudge and I will not let it go in that direction.

I don't support impeaching anyone currently in office. But how are you going to suggest you aren't involved in this when, as a candidate, you announced your support for impeaching the entire Supreme Court? You're possibly right that we should know whether the justices are doing their jobs- in this instance I take them at their word- but this is how things have always been done on the Court. Why not look for alternative solutions? As it stands, you will be impeaching these Justices and throwing new ones into the same system.

Anyway, I don't think you have the grudge against the Justices, which is why I was shocked as I said earlier to read your initial statement. Unless you were referring to me having a grudge which simply isn't the case. I don't think my questions have been unreasonable though. I just had an interest in the thought process involved in reaching that decision because in my opinion impeachment is an extreme step.

[Napoleon]

Endorsed.