SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT)

[TJ in Wisco]

Sorry for not voting here after voting elsewhere for longer than it should have taken.

On recommendation to expand the court by two members
Nay.

On recommendation to require Supreme Court Justices to post opinions on each case considered by the court
Aye

[Governor Scott]

All members have voted.  By a vote of 3-0, this Committee hereby recommends that each Supreme Court judge be required to post their own opinions for all court cases.

[Governor Scott]

The Committee will now consider the Constitutional amendment authored by the Administration and introduced by myself.

AN AMENDMENT

To ensure the equal protection of all genders n the Republic of Atlasia.

Be it enacted by 2/3 of the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia.

SECTION ONE. TITLE

This amendment may be cited as the 'Equal Rights Amendment.'

SECTION TWO. AMENDMENT

1.) Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by Atlasia or by any Region on account of sex or sexual orientation towards adults.

2.) The Senate shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

First, I would like to formally give the President the opportunity to speak on behalf of his amendment.  In doing so, I would like him to address the concerns that Senate Clarence raised so we can work out any quirks in a timely fashion.

(Yes, I will be speaking in defense of the amendment, as well. )

[Governor Scott]

Also Yankee, would there be enough time for us to consider Ben's law, as well?  If there's no possible way to include that into the schedule, I suppose I can have the Committee consider both bills at the same time, but I'm very reluctant to do this.

[opebo]

Requiring each justice to write an opinion would require a constitutional amendment, fellows.

The point being - it is petty, and quite frankly an insult to the dignity of the Justices and more importantly the dignity and indepedence of the institution, to attempt to micro-manage the court in the way you are doing. 

Lets all step back and face the facts:  The attemps to pack the court failed.  It would be ridiculous to make a constitutional amendment to give us a writing assignment - your oversight is confined to confirmation and impeachment, not to running the court.

[Governor Scott]

Requiring each justice to write an opinion would require a constitutional amendment, fellows.

The point being - it is petty, and quite frankly an insult to the dignity of the Justices and more importantly the dignity and indepedence of the institution, to attempt to micro-manage the court in the way you are doing.  

Lets all step back and face the facts:  The attemps to pack the court failed.  It would be ridiculous to make a constitutional amendment to give us a writing assignment - your oversight is confined to confirmation and impeachment, not to running the court.

Actually, if you'd read the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Creation Resolution, the Committee also has jurisdiction over all courts and judges, regional and federal.  A recommendation vote itself is virtually meaningless because all it does is endorse the idea of judges having 'writing assignments.'  However, it is likely that a Constitutional amendment will sooner or later come up that would do just that.  I don't know why you're worried about "court packing," since both of the committees working on court reform have pretty much deemed that proposal dead and the chances are that it won't be considered again.

[opebo]

i don't know why you're worried about "court packing," since both of the committees working on court reform have pretty much deemed that proposal dead and the chances are that it won't be considered again.

That was precisely my point - you guys failed to pack the court, so don't now in frustration just try to insult us with these demeaning writing assignmetns and micromanagement.

[Governor Scott]

i don't know why you're worried about "court packing," since both of the committees working on court reform have pretty much deemed that proposal dead and the chances are that it won't be considered again.

That was precisely my point - you guys failed to pack the court, so don't now in frustration just try to insult us with these demeaning writing assignmetns and micromanagement.

I don't know where you got the idea that we're just doing this all out of frustration.  There are plenty of valid reasons for requiring justices to write their own opinions.

[opebo]

I don't know where you got the idea that we're just doing this all out of frustration.  There are plenty of valid reasons for requiring justices to write their own opinions.

You do realize the Court is a third branch of government, don't you?  Equal to and no subsidiary to the legislative or the executive?  Your powers over us are strictly enumerated, and I see nothing in the Constitution giving you authority to give me homework or otherwise micromanage us.

[Governor Scott]

I don't know where you got the idea that we're just doing this all out of frustration.  There are plenty of valid reasons for requiring justices to write their own opinions.

You do realize the Court is a third branch of government, don't you?  Equal to and no subsidiary to the legislative or the executive?  Your powers over us are strictly enumerated, and I see nothing in the Constitution giving you authority to give me homework or otherwise micromanage us.

As I've said, what the Judiciary Committee recommended won't even take effect unless a Senator proposes an amendment, the amendment is passed by 2/3 of the Senate, and four out of the five regions ratify it.

[Senator Napoleon]

The Committee will now consider the Constitutional amendment authored by the Administration and introduced by myself.

AN AMENDMENT

To ensure the equal protection of all genders n the Republic of Atlasia.

Be it enacted by 2/3 of the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia.

SECTION ONE. TITLE

This amendment may be cited as the 'Equal Rights Amendment.'

SECTION TWO. AMENDMENT

1.) Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by Atlasia or by any Region on account of sex or sexual orientation towards adults.

2.) The Senate shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

First, I would like to formally give the President the opportunity to speak on behalf of his amendment.  In doing so, I would like him to address the concerns that Senate Clarence raised so we can work out any quirks in a timely fashion.

(Yes, I will be speaking in defense of the amendment, as well. )

You already addressed Senator Clarence's opposition, I have little to add. I will be referring the Attorney General to this committee.

[Governor Scott]

Okay.  An opinion from the AG would be very helpful, as well.

[afleitch]

Okay.  An opinion from the AG would be very helpful, as well.

I am more than happy to.

[Governor Scott]

Afleitch, what are your personal feelings on the amendment?  Do you believe that the concerns Clarence raised are legitimate ones?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

i don't know why you're worried about "court packing," since both of the committees working on court reform have pretty much deemed that proposal dead and the chances are that it won't be considered again.

That was precisely my point - you guys failed to pack the court, so don't now in frustration just try to insult us with these demeaning writing assignmetns and micromanagement.

I don't know where you got the idea that we're just doing this all out of frustration.  There are plenty of valid reasons for requiring justices to write their own opinions.

Not to mention the fact that his timeline doesn't work out at all. This idea predates the debates on expanding the court.

[ModerateCoward]

i don't know why you're worried about "court packing," since both of the committees working on court reform have pretty much deemed that proposal dead and the chances are that it won't be considered again.

That was precisely my point - you guys failed to pack the court, so don't now in frustration just try to insult us with these demeaning writing assignmetns and micromanagement.

Well they failed to pack the court, but I tried to introduce that to avert the packing of the court.

[afleitch]

If I may adress the Senate on this issue, particularly Senator Clarence's points.

The ERA would simply guarantee that the rights affirmed by our constitution are held equally without regard to sex or sexual orienation. Sex and sexual orientation through this amendment would be considered a 'suspect classification'; similar to how race is treated. Therefore actions taken by this government that treat males, females or peopleacross the spectrum of sexuality differently as a class, would be subject to judicial scrutiny and would have to meet the highest level of justification ('a necessary relation to a compelling state interest') in order to be upheld as constitutional. Senator Clarence suggests that the ERA places a 'blanket ban' on an organisation that discriminates membership based on sex. He should be aware that even without an ERA, Supreme Court decisions undertaken by our predecessor nation has limited the consitutionality of public single-sex unions (Mississippi University for Woman v Hogan, U.S v Commonwealth of Virginia (1996) ) However the constitution already provides for freedom of assembly. The ERA does not contravene that right specifically when applied to exclusively private members organisations. It is important to read this amendment as part of our constitution, not set apart from it.

Senator Clarence also raises his concern over the draft. Amendment VIII of the Third Constitution reads; "Neither shall the Republic of Atlasia nor any of its constituent regions enforce compulsory conscription upon any citizen, without the consent of four-fifths of the Senate." Naturally the draft has not been enforced since 1973 and this amendment strengthens this position. In the event that four-fifths of the Senate vote to enact compulsory conscription there is nothing currently in the constitution that protects women against involuntary military service. It just so happens that the Senate has not required them to participate or register with the Selective Service System but it still holds the power to do so (confined by Amendment VIII.) Should the ERA be passed then there would still be nothing in the Constitution that protects women against involuntary military service. However it would make exluding them from consideration solely on account of their sex unconstitutional for the first time. There is no legitimate reason in my opinion to exclude women from combat or front-line roles should they be mentally and physically qualified to do so. At the moment, except for a few select positions, women are excluded firstly (and exclusively) on account of their gender, not their combat readiness or any other attribute. If a women is fit to serve a selected role she should serve. If she is unfit she shouldn't serve. This works well for men.

On the matter of transgenderism being a 'choice' I have to stridently disagree with the Senator. Having a gender identity different to one's physical sex is not a choice. His restroom analogy is slightly off. Firstly there would still be seperate restrooms should an establishment wish (or unisex restrooms should they wish) as long as both sexes can do what they need to do. That is common practice anyway. All the ERA would outlaw, if it even still happens, is only having toilets exclusively for one sex. However I digress. A post op transgender, having had their physical sex re-aligned with their gender identity should not be barred from using the restrooms allocated to their physical sex. If anything, Atlasia needs thorough and comprehensive legislation on transgender issues but this is something I would put to the Senate to consider.

[shua]

Is there a definition of "sexual orientation" being used here?  This is not an uncontested concept. Is it meant here to refer to behavior as well as attraction?   If it is meant attraction, then there is no lawful reason to include the "towards adults" part at the end, since people who are attracted to youth, animals, objects, etc. should not be denied their equal rights on this basis alone so long as in their actions they abide by the law.

[Governor Scott]

Thank you, Afleitch.

Is there a definition of "sexual orientation" being used here?  This is not an uncontested concept. Is it meant here to refer to behavior as well as attraction?   If it is meant attraction, then there is no lawful reason to include the "towards adults" part at the end, since people who are attracted to youth, animals, objects, etc. should not be denied their equal rights on this basis alone so long as in their actions they abide by the law.

Since transgendered people would be covered by this as well, I think it's safe to assume that both would be defined under that term.  Do you feel that the amendment should explicitly define 'sexual orientation?'

[shua]

Thank you, Afleitch.

Is there a definition of "sexual orientation" being used here?  This is not an uncontested concept. Is it meant here to refer to behavior as well as attraction?   If it is meant attraction, then there is no lawful reason to include the "towards adults" part at the end, since people who are attracted to youth, animals, objects, etc. should not be denied their equal rights on this basis alone so long as in their actions they abide by the law.

Since transgendered people would be covered by this as well, I think it's safe to assume that both would be defined under that term.  Do you feel that the amendment should explicitly define 'sexual orientation?'

Well that shows the complexity of the issue, since transgender isn't an attraction or a behavior but a gender identity.  I think it makes sense to spell out as best as possible what sort of discrimination this amendment seeks to counter.

[afleitch]

Is there a definition of "sexual orientation" being used here?  This is not an uncontested concept. Is it meant here to refer to behavior as well as attraction?   If it is meant attraction, then there is no lawful reason to include the "towards adults" part at the end, since people who are attracted to youth, animals, objects, etc. should not be denied their equal rights on this basis alone so long as in their actions they abide by the law.

By sexual orienation it is understood to mean heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. The American Psychological Association does not consider sexual attraction towards objects, animals, youth as a 'sexual orientation' as there can be no reciprocation. In the case of children there can be no legal reciprocation.

[Senator Clarence]

I appreciate afleitch speaking to my concerns... I can't say I was persuaded by his comments however

Rather then specifically argue each point (such as women in combat) I will sum up my view and get down to brass tax.... men and women are different. We are made differently by our Creator, we have had different roles throughout human history, and we have different abilities. Not all men are the same and not all women are the same...it is not as if I want women to all be homemakers as that is not what I believe in the slightest. But to mandate women have a football team and be permitted to join the Boy Scouts... to put men and women in the same restroom...there are far too many variables here. Where there is discrimination, it must be fought...but I don't believe that includes activities or organizations which recognize our God-given differences between the sexes

[afleitch]

I appreciate afleitch speaking to my concerns... I can't say I was persuaded by his comments however

Rather then specifically argue each point (such as women in combat) I will sum up my view and get down to brass tax.... men and women are different. We are made differently by our Creator, we have had different roles throughout human history, and we have different abilities. Not all men are the same and not all women are the same...it is not as if I want women to all be homemakers as that is not what I believe in the slightest. But to mandate women have a football team and be permitted to join the Boy Scouts... to put men and women in the same restroom...there are far too many variables here. Where there is discrimination, it must be fought...but I don't believe that includes activities or organizations which recognize our God-given differences between the sexes

With respect, it appears you have not full read and understood my statement. I do not consider that our law should be affected by religious notions of 'difference between the sexes.' No one is denying that men and women are different, or any two people from any section of society are different but they have the right to be treated by the law as the same and have the same opportunities. I do not know where you think this law will cause men and women to 'use the same restroom'; I explained succinctly why that was and is a ludicrous position.

[TJ in Wisco]

Do you consider such an exemption needed in light of what the Constitution says about freedom of worship?

I think it would be necessary because making this a constitutional amendment rather than simply a law puts it on an equal footing with the freedom to worship, such that a judge could rule either way if the two were to conflict. A judge could rule for instance that freedom to worship is affected less by mandating female ordination than employment discrimination is without such a mandate.

The amendment could be reworded such that would only apply to government institutions and by doing so the potential problems would be greatly reduced while relying on the Atlasia-modified version of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sex and (in Atlasia) sexual orientation. Applying such rights broadly as this amendment does would otherwise require private organizations to accept members of the opposite gender because the amendment does not grant the type of exemptions to private clubs that the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act grant. The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts however would be exempted because their members are not adults.

One problem that would remain even so is that this would mandate all male and all female bathrooms from public buildings. By drawing gender equality into the same lense as racial equality, having separate bathrooms would be discrimination. You would not be allowed to have separate bathrooms in a public institution for whites and blacks. If gender equality is legally the same as racial equality, you can't have separate mens' and womens' bathrooms. In order to keep separate bathrooms we would need some sort of clause affording some degree of inequality, perhaps something like:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by Atlasia or by any Region on account of sex or sexual orientation except where necessary due to biological differences towards adults.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have to inform the committee that the legislation now under consideration will soon be on the floor. That means you have at minimum 72 hours, perhaps more if amendments and stuff drag it out, to complete consideration and vote on a recommendation for the whole Senate to consider.