This is so dumb I can't even believe it

[The Duke]

To Don and Chris,

You may not like hearing this, but the Supreme Court's ruling is not the problem, and Kemp/Dibble/NixonNow are not the problem either.

The problem is that the Constitution gave them every imaginable ooprtunity to do what they did.  Nonsensical provisions demanding trials that will never take place are what let NixonNow off the hook.  A document that fails to specifically empower the government to provide social welfare gave the court all the chance it needed to overturn a law they didn't like.  That's the problem, not the judges or the ruling.

No one should over react to the individual judges, its not their fault the Constitution stinks.

To the Court,

What would possibly posses you to take these cases at all?  What is the point of issuing controversial rulings under a Constitution that won't even be around in a month or two?  Ever hear of a stay?  Hearing these cases at all makes no sense to me, and its caused a lot of trouble that you didn't just take the easy (and right) way out and issue that stay.

To Texasgurl specifically,

Yesterday I was proud I voted to confirm you.  I just want you to know that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

New constitution should be ready "soon"...

[KEmperor]

It has always been the policy of this court to hear cases in a reasonable amount of time.  I am not going to postpone cases indefinately.

[The Dowager Mod]

To Don and Chris,

You may not like hearing this, but the Supreme Court's ruling is not the problem, and Kemp/Dibble/NixonNow are not the problem either.

The problem is that the Constitution gave them every imaginable ooprtunity to do what they did.  Nonsensical provisions demanding trials that will never take place are what let NixonNow off the hook.  A document that fails to specifically empower the government to provide social welfare gave the court all the chance it needed to overturn a law they didn't like.  That's the problem, not the judges or the ruling.

No one should over react to the individual judges, its not their fault the Constitution stinks.

To the Court,

What would possibly posses you to take these cases at all?  What is the point of issuing controversial rulings under a Constitution that won't even be around in a month or two?  Ever hear of a stay?  Hearing these cases at all makes no sense to me, and its caused a lot of trouble that you didn't just take the easy (and right) way out and issue that stay.

To Texasgurl specifically,

Yesterday I was proud I voted to confirm you.  I just want you to know that.

Thanx.

[MAS117]

Looks like I missed alot. I believe the ruling my the court was a excellent one, and they ruled according to the consitution.

[John Dibble]

To the Court,

What would possibly posses you to take these cases at all?  What is the point of issuing controversial rulings under a Constitution that won't even be around in a month or two?  Ever hear of a stay?  Hearing these cases at all makes no sense to me, and its caused a lot of trouble that you didn't just take the easy (and right) way out and issue that stay.

I can't speak for KEmperor, but I can speak for myself. Why did I agree to take the cases? Well, first and foremost I took the position of Justice so I could actually do something - S.E. Magistrate wasn't exactly a position in which I could do much. Also, it's not like we get cases that often, we're not swamped like the real Supreme Court, so we'll take pretty much any case. As for the Constitution not being around soon, that's not something I took into account - sorry, but I haven't been keeping up with that, so it did not cross my mind. Besides, the current Constitution is the highest law at this current time, and it would be wrong not to follow the law just because it will be changing in the future. Also, the issues took place under the current Constitution. When this new Constitution passes, Supersoulty can make the bill again - if it passes and is challenged by Bono or anyone else, I'll review it against the new constitution, just as I did this time, with no personal feelings towards the bill. The constitutionality will depend on the constitution, plain and simple. As for the NixonNow case, you won't convince me that that decision did not need to be made - StevenNick clearly violated due process by taking unilateral executive action, something I'd imagine even the new Constitution would forbid(if not, it should), and that's not an action any government branch should tolerate. As a result future unilateral action will be prevented, since there is precedent, and things can be done the right way.

[KEmperor]

To the Court,

What would possibly posses you to take these cases at all?  What is the point of issuing controversial rulings under a Constitution that won't even be around in a month or two?  Ever hear of a stay?  Hearing these cases at all makes no sense to me, and its caused a lot of trouble that you didn't just take the easy (and right) way out and issue that stay.

I can't speak for KEmperor, but I can speak for myself. Why did I agree to take the cases? Well, first and foremost I took the position of Justice so I could actually do something - S.E. Magistrate wasn't exactly a position in which I could do much. Also, it's not like we get cases that often, we're not swamped like the real Supreme Court, so we'll take pretty much any case. As for the Constitution not being around soon, that's not something I took into account - sorry, but I haven't been keeping up with that, so it did not cross my mind. Besides, the current Constitution is the highest law at this current time, and it would be wrong not to follow the law just because it will be changing in the future. Also, the issues took place under the current Constitution. When this new Constitution passes, Supersoulty can make the bill again - if it passes and is challenged by Bono or anyone else, I'll review it against the new constitution, just as I did this time, with no personal feelings towards the bill. The constitutionality will depend on the constitution, plain and simple. As for the NixonNow case, you won't convince me that that decision did not need to be made - StevenNick clearly violated due process by taking unilateral executive action, something I'd imagine even the new Constitution would forbid(if not, it should), and that's not an action any government branch should tolerate. As a result future unilateral action will be prevented, since there is precedent, and things can be done the right way.

I agree with Dibble's statement.

[The Duke]

To the Court,

What would possibly posses you to take these cases at all?  What is the point of issuing controversial rulings under a Constitution that won't even be around in a month or two?  Ever hear of a stay?  Hearing these cases at all makes no sense to me, and its caused a lot of trouble that you didn't just take the easy (and right) way out and issue that stay.

I can't speak for KEmperor, but I can speak for myself. Why did I agree to take the cases? Well, first and foremost I took the position of Justice so I could actually do something - S.E. Magistrate wasn't exactly a position in which I could do much. Also, it's not like we get cases that often, we're not swamped like the real Supreme Court, so we'll take pretty much any case. As for the Constitution not being around soon, that's not something I took into account - sorry, but I haven't been keeping up with that, so it did not cross my mind. Besides, the current Constitution is the highest law at this current time, and it would be wrong not to follow the law just because it will be changing in the future. Also, the issues took place under the current Constitution. When this new Constitution passes, Supersoulty can make the bill again - if it passes and is challenged by Bono or anyone else, I'll review it against the new constitution, just as I did this time, with no personal feelings towards the bill. The constitutionality will depend on the constitution, plain and simple. As for the NixonNow case, you won't convince me that that decision did not need to be made - StevenNick clearly violated due process by taking unilateral executive action, something I'd imagine even the new Constitution would forbid(if not, it should), and that's not an action any government branch should tolerate. As a result future unilateral action will be prevented, since there is precedent, and things can be done the right way.

I don't disagree with the NixonNow ruling, I simply don't like that provision of the Constitution.  I think requiring trial by jury is crazy and the Supreme or Regional Courts should handle these matters without juries.

[KEmperor]

To the Court,

What would possibly posses you to take these cases at all?  What is the point of issuing controversial rulings under a Constitution that won't even be around in a month or two?  Ever hear of a stay?  Hearing these cases at all makes no sense to me, and its caused a lot of trouble that you didn't just take the easy (and right) way out and issue that stay.

I can't speak for KEmperor, but I can speak for myself. Why did I agree to take the cases? Well, first and foremost I took the position of Justice so I could actually do something - S.E. Magistrate wasn't exactly a position in which I could do much. Also, it's not like we get cases that often, we're not swamped like the real Supreme Court, so we'll take pretty much any case. As for the Constitution not being around soon, that's not something I took into account - sorry, but I haven't been keeping up with that, so it did not cross my mind. Besides, the current Constitution is the highest law at this current time, and it would be wrong not to follow the law just because it will be changing in the future. Also, the issues took place under the current Constitution. When this new Constitution passes, Supersoulty can make the bill again - if it passes and is challenged by Bono or anyone else, I'll review it against the new constitution, just as I did this time, with no personal feelings towards the bill. The constitutionality will depend on the constitution, plain and simple. As for the NixonNow case, you won't convince me that that decision did not need to be made - StevenNick clearly violated due process by taking unilateral executive action, something I'd imagine even the new Constitution would forbid(if not, it should), and that's not an action any government branch should tolerate. As a result future unilateral action will be prevented, since there is precedent, and things can be done the right way.

I don't disagree with the NixonNow ruling, I simply don't like that provision of the Constitution.  I think requiring trial by jury is crazy and the Supreme or Regional Courts should handle these matters without juries.

Fair enough, that's a reasonable position.  Of course, as a Justice I can only work within the guidelines of what the Constitution says, it's not for me to say what the provision SHOULD be.

[The Duke]

Yeah, my official position is that no ruling should be issued until the new Constitution comes, but whatever.

You guys were right about the NixonNow case, but that the law should be changed since it doesn't work well in my view.

I still think that Texasgurl was right in the Bono case.  The Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Authority Amendment says "The Supreme Court shall only be able to nullify or void a law in the event that the law explicitly contradicts the Constitution."  Then, in the Powers of te Seante and Regions Amendment, it says "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."  So to me, the only way that the law in question explicitly violates the Constitution is if we had not followed proper procedure in passing the law.  But the most important thing is that we need a new Constitution that clearly gives the Senate the power to do social welfare.  If someone wanted this to be Constitutional, they'd make it so.  If someone wanted it not to be, they'd make it so.  That's the problem with this case.

Its just so dumb that people get so worked up about this stuff.  Yeah, its a pain in the ass to follow procedure, but WE CREATED THESE PROCEDURES so no one has the right to complain, in my view.

[jokerman]

Well, sure we need a better system for judging accused "trolls," however the ruling was just.