SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Gov't Oversight and Reform (Recommendations)

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would the Committee members desire the invitation of the Justices to offer their opinion on this since they have been outspoken on previous reform attempts already?

[Senator Ben]

Would the Committee members desire the invitation of the Justices to offer their opinion on this since they have been outspoken on previous reform attempts already?

Very much so.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do you agree, Scott?

[ModerateCoward]

Why are there multiple bills trying to pack the court?

[Governor Scott]

Do you agree, Scott?

Absolutely.

[Senator Ben]

Why are there multiple bills trying to pack the court?

Because the time has come to expand the Court.  Three Justices is simply too few; all a Justice needs to do is to persuade one other person of the correctness of his idea in order to win.

[ModerateCoward]

Why are there multiple bills trying to pack the court?

Because the time has come to expand the Court.  Three Justices is simply too few; all a Justice needs to do is to persuade one other person of the correctness of his idea in order to win.

So your solution is to pack the court?

[Senator Ben]

So your solution is to pack the court?

My solution is to expand the number of Justices.  It is narrow-minded to say that the Court can never be expanded.

[ModerateCoward]

So your solution is to pack the court?

My solution is to expand the number of Justices.  It is narrow-minded to say that the Court can never be expanded.

And it's not narrow minded to expand the court because you don't agree with it's rulings? Do you realize what kind of precedent that sets? If you want court reform you could try to increase the participation of 3 justices by making it more like real supreme court in function, and making potential impeachment procedures more fact based/rather than partisan minded court packing. We should include the oral arguments and make it imperative that judges participate in asking questions, and also make it necessary to have opinion drafts with every verdict.

[Senator Ben]

I don't disagree with the Court's rulings, that's the thing.  I think the Court is doing an excellent job.  There have been no impeachments, nothing to politicize the Court.  You're seeing a conspiracy where one doesn't exist.

[Governor Scott]

I concur with Ben.  I fail to see how expanding the court politicizes it in any way.  However, I also agree with Seatown's suggestions because all of our justices should be obligated to present their own opinions, whether they stand alone or are in the majority.  The justices have a very limited role as things currently stand.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Justices have been invited to respond on this matter.



I also concur with mandated opinion drafts if such is possible. I inquired about legal ways to address this matter with the Chief Justice and haven't recieved a response. Since the Justices have been invited to testify here I would like it if they may also opine on this matter as well.

[bgwah]

I don't understand why this idea is still being debated. The court has functioned fine for 8 years with three members. There's barely anything for us to do as is, but obviously reducing the court to two members would result in ties, and reducing it to one member would be giving a single person far too much power. So we have three... and it's just the right number.

[Senator Napoleon]

I don't understand why this idea is still being debated. The court has functioned fine for 8 years with three members. There's barely anything for us to do as is, but obviously reducing the court to two members would result in ties, and reducing it to one member would be giving a single person far too much power. So we have three... and it's just the right number.

Wait...why are we talking about reducing the size of the Court? It would be better to expand the Court.

[Senator Ben]

Wait...why are we talking about reducing the size of the Court? It would be better to expand the Court.

Nobody is talking about reduction; we're only considering expansion.

[bgwah]

I was being semi-sarcastic and suggesting that reducing the court would make more sense than expanding it, but I don't support either obviously.

[Governor Scott]

I was being semi-sarcastic and suggesting that reducing the court would make more sense than expanding it, but I don't support either obviously.

Obviously it wouldn't, but why, exactly, are you against expanding it?

[bgwah]

In addition to my first post, I read you talk about how there would be more debate . Justices, IRL and here in Atlasia, typically have most of their debate and discussions in private. How do you know we don't have enough debate? And how would you know whether or not there was an increase if we increased the size?

[Governor Scott]

In addition to my first post, I read you talk about how there would be more debate . Justices, IRL and here in Atlasia, typically have most of their debate and discussions in private. How do you know we don't have enough debate? And how would you know whether or not there was an increase if we increased the size?

Well, then perhaps we could amend the Constitution so that justices are required to debate the cases in public rather than in private, in addition to adding more justices.  I don't see how there wouldn't be more debate if justices were required to debate in public as well as write their own opinions.

[Ebowed]

I also concur with mandated opinion drafts if such is possible. I inquired about legal ways to address this matter with the Chief Justice and haven't recieved a response. Since the Justices have been invited to testify here I would like it if they may also opine on this matter as well.

Sorry, I think I must have missed that.  One idea could be re-confirmation hearings if a member of the Court fails to attach their name to an opinion twice without explanation, as unlike re-confirmations relating to fixed term lengths it would have less of a political aspect, and would likely be an effective method of requiring participation from every member of the Court.

This proposal becomes significantly less feasible if we are to expand the size of the Court, however, working under the assumption that people will be less inclined to participate if one of the other, say, four Justices can do their questioning and/or discussion for them.  I remain convinced that the reason for stagnation in the Court's activity is a simple lack of lawsuits in the last several years rather than any inherent flaws within the judicial system.

[Governor Scott]

I also concur with mandated opinion drafts if such is possible. I inquired about legal ways to address this matter with the Chief Justice and haven't recieved a response. Since the Justices have been invited to testify here I would like it if they may also opine on this matter as well.

Sorry, I think I must have missed that.  One idea could be re-confirmation hearings if a member of the Court fails to attach their name to an opinion twice without explanation, as unlike re-confirmations relating to fixed term lengths it would have less of a political aspect, and would likely be an effective method of requiring participation from every member of the Court.

This proposal becomes significantly less feasible if we are to expand the size of the Court, however, working under the assumption that people will be less inclined to participate if one of the other, say, four Justices can do their questioning and/or discussion for them.  I remain convinced that the reason for stagnation in the Court's activity is a simple lack of lawsuits in the last several years rather than any inherent flaws within the judicial system.

Admittedly, a new addition of justices wouldn't create any new court cases (feel free to dispute that, Yankee and Ben, if either of you think otherwise); however, as previously stated, the inclusion of more people on the bench would encourage better participation and create more diverse opinions when cases do, in fact, come up.  I simply don't understand how one justice would be inclined to do all the work for the remaining justices, especially if we go forward with something like your idea to reconfirm members of the Court.

[opebo]

The court is fine as it is.

[opebo]

Why are there multiple bills trying to pack the court?

Because they want to politicize the court - they don't like the current set of justices, so they want to upend the constitution for their own petty ends.  It is profoundly ugly.

[ModerateCoward]

I also concur with mandated opinion drafts if such is possible. I inquired about legal ways to address this matter with the Chief Justice and haven't recieved a response. Since the Justices have been invited to testify here I would like it if they may also opine on this matter as well.

Sorry, I think I must have missed that.  One idea could be re-confirmation hearings if a member of the Court fails to attach their name to an opinion twice without explanation, as unlike re-confirmations relating to fixed term lengths it would have less of a political aspect, and would likely be an effective method of requiring participation from every member of the Court.

This proposal becomes significantly less feasible if we are to expand the size of the Court, however, working under the assumption that people will be less inclined to participate if one of the other, say, four Justices can do their questioning and/or discussion for them.  I remain convinced that the reason for stagnation in the Court's activity is a simple lack of lawsuits in the last several years rather than any inherent flaws within the judicial system.

Admittedly, a new addition of justices wouldn't create any new court cases (feel free to dispute that, Yankee and Ben, if either of you think otherwise); however, as previously stated, the inclusion of more people on the bench would encourage better participation and create more diverse opinions when cases do, in fact, come up.  I simply don't understand how one justice would be inclined to do all the work for the remaining justices, especially if we go forward with something like your idea to reconfirm members of the Court.

Inclusion of more justices is pure politicization of the court as opebo has stated, especially when it gets like 2 cases a year. I would consider adding a bill that increases the duties of the court to include a questioning period similar to the one of supreme court of the US, and also having obligatory opinions written when ruling on a case.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It would appear that all three of our highest court's members have differing opinions only in that they are in various degrees of opposition.

Unless more feedback or testimony is desired from some person on this matter, I think we should begin to move on.

I think at this point we should have the members get on the record with statements or some sort, followed by a vote on a recommendation, both to the Senate as a whole and to the other committee. We should focus our recommendations, reasonings and justifications to primarily issues of function and effectiveness of the measure in terms of achieving some type of reform, in this case trying to encourage activity of the Supreme Court.

What are thoughts of the other members with regards to proceeding in such a fashion?