SENATE BILL: The Judiciary Reform Amendment of 2012 (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Ben

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ben, talk to me! What is this?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First thing that strikes me is that this is functionaly impractical as an act of law and would have to be an Amendment to the Constitution.

[Redalgo]

Ya, I reckon this requires a constitutional amendment. We should also have an odd number of justices on the bench to avoid tied votes on how to rule. I do not know if we've enough folks in the game interested to fill the posts, but if we do it would be great to have the number of justices expanded in a manner similar to that presented in the legislation. What are your thoughts, Ben?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

So, there are a whole host of problems with this bill.  First, it needs to be an Amendment.  Second, there is the dual officeholding provision (which can be overruled in the text of the Amendment).  I'm not concerned with the even number of Justices, simply because I would expect a CJO to recuse himself if the case comes from their region.  Again, there are many problems, but the basic purpose is to expand the Court, and that should be the issue we focus on.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Even though I would rather not see Belgiansocialist on the Supreme Court, this bill seems reasonable aside from a few things.

Two amendments:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Napoleon]

My administration opposes this amendment. I don't have any authority to sign or veto Constitutional amendments but I will happily offer my case against it upon request of the Senate.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

My administration opposes this amendment. I don't have any authority to sign or veto Constitutional amendments but I will happily offer my case against it upon request of the Senate.

What do you dislike about the amendment?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Scott's amendment is friendly and appreciated

[Redalgo]

If the amendments are made I will feel far more inclined to support this legislation.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

If the amendments are made I will feel far more inclined to support this legislation.

Good, because this legislation was drafted with the assumption it would be heavily amended.  The basic purpose is what matters to me more than the actual text.

[Napoleon]

This amendment is unacceptable to me. I do not like fixing problems that do not exist. This bill seems to me to be rooted in a mistrust of the current Court for either personal or political reasons and assumptions unsupported by their work.

This amendment infringes on the right of the President to select Justices and the right of the Senate to confirm appointed Justices. It attempts to bypass the procedures set in place to preserve the balance of power between the three branches of government. Passing this amendment would be tantamount to a hostile takeover of the federal judicial branch by the regions.

If we are truly looking to expand the Court, increasing the number of justices to five could be appropriate. The Court is a part time job that requires less activity, which expands the pool of applicants significantly meaning that the appointed justices wouldn't be taking highly active citizens away from more needy positions. In fact I have already had four requests, for some reason.

[Redalgo]

Opposition to fixing problems that do not yet in practice exist is perhaps more expedient, conservative, and incrementalist of an attitude in nature than it is one ideally rational for a political leader to embrace. We all should be eternally mindful of our respective responsibilities to help forge a more perfect union in the months and years lying ahead. I contend this amendment shall deliver two benefits in particular which make the amendment's provisions more desirable than the status quo.

For one, somewhat decentralizing control of the highest court in the land should enhance the legitimacy said court has in the eyes of the people who reside in the many regions, potentially producing a bump in interegional solidarity and greater voter confidence in federal institutions on account of their increased incorporation of regional voices into decision-making processes. Ours is a federalist system in which there must be balances of power struck not only amongst the branches of the national state, but also betwixt many tiers of representative government.

Furthermore, partial decentralization of appointments for the seats could decrease the latent vulnerability of the entire nomination process to federal corruption and/or politicization. While it is certainly possible the regional appointees could be selected on account of similarly flawed decision-making processes it is my opinion that the regional governments shall be more easily held accountable by the People than could be the federal government were it to ever one day succumb to such base motives. That is to suggest we should not put all of our highest court's eggs into a single basket.

If this amendment fails I plan to support that the President proposes, but still prefer this one.

[Napoleon]

Fixing problems that do not exist leads, more often than not, to unintended consequences. This plan eliminates a series of checks and balances that I feel are important to maintaining the integrity of the law.

[Ebowed]

This proposal dilutes the ability of the federal government to maintain oversight of regional activity, and directly threatens the checks and balances that currently exist to prevent regional abuses of the federal constitution.  This reads as an egregious attempt to politicize the Supreme Court.

[tmthforu94]

Is the CJO an elected position in any region? If so, that would be an automatic reason for me to oppose this.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

To those who think this would politicize the Court, I feel I should ask- how are appointments themselves not politicized, especially when the president is always going to appoint someone who shares his judicial philosophy?

Like Redalgo said, this, if anything, would enhance the court's legitimacy because the regions would have say in the cases that affect our country.  Because the bill mandates that CJOs recuse themselves from cases of which their own regions are involved, the chances of bias influencing court decisions are low.  But overall, having a court composed of people who know their own regions' legal system best is simply the responsible thing to do.

I would also be open to supporting the President's idea to increase the number of federal judges if this plan does not pass.  Either way, the Supreme Court should be more involved in the game, and increasing regional participation would be a great way to do it.

Perhaps we could amend the legislation to require all CJOs to be confirmed by the Senate so that the Federal government still has a large role in selecting them.

Is the CJO an elected position in any region? If so, that would be an automatic reason for me to oppose this.

The CJO is appointed in the Northeast, but I'm not sure about other regions.  As a matter of fact, I think one or two regions may not even have a CJO.  Those issues would also have to be worked out.

[Ebowed]

Either way, the Supreme Court should be more involved in the game

Increasing the number of people involved isn't necessarily going to do that.  The Court can only work with what it is given.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Scott's amendment is friendly and appreciated

Which one? He offered them seperately.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What does the sponsor see as benefits to expansion of the court's size?

[opebo]

What does the sponsor see as benefits to expansion of the court's size?

Obviously the sponsor disagrees with at least one justice on the court, and wishes - lacking the power to remove him - to dilute his vote.  Increasing the number of justices does not change the functioning of the court, it merely effects this political end - reducing the authority of justices with whom a politiciser disagrees.

[Napoleon]

This is not a good idea....

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Obviously the sponsor disagrees with at least one justice on the court, and wishes - lacking the power to remove him - to dilute his vote.  Increasing the number of justices does not change the functioning of the court, it merely effects this political end - reducing the authority of justices with whom a politiciser disagrees.

Not at all.  I merely believe that the Court should be expanded to beyond three members, and I saw this as an interesting way to achieve that goal, while also enhancing the powers of the Regions.  It is not at all an attempt to politicize the Court, especially given that it isn't as if the new Justices are particularly likely to share my judicial philosophy.

[Napoleon]

Obviously the sponsor disagrees with at least one justice on the court, and wishes - lacking the power to remove him - to dilute his vote.  Increasing the number of justices does not change the functioning of the court, it merely effects this political end - reducing the authority of justices with whom a politiciser disagrees.

Not at all.  I merely believe that the Court should be expanded to beyond three members, and I saw this as an interesting way to achieve that goal, while also enhancing the powers of the Regions.  It is not at all an attempt to politicize the Court, especially given that it isn't as if the new Justices are particularly likely to share my judicial philosophy.

If that is your goal, you should consider adopting my simpler and more effective proposal to add two Justices. Trying to use this amendment to enhance the power of regions as you say, can only be considered a politicization of the Court. I applaud your effort in creativity but I submit that the net effect of this amendment will be detrimental as worded.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Either way, the Supreme Court should be more involved in the game

Increasing the number of people involved isn't necessarily going to do that.  The Court can only work with what it is given.

True, but court cases themselves could become much more involving if there are more justices participating in them.