SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Judiciary (Check and Balances Amendment)

[MaxQue]

Yes, yes. Do I need a new thread?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, but you can create one if you think it would help ensure the productivity of the committee. I considered creating a new GOR thread for instance. That is completely up to you, though.

Remember to select a fill-in chair.

[MaxQue]

Given than Kal seats on two committees, I suppose than TJ would be a more avaliable fill-in chair, but that's open to discussion (until we find a subject).

[MaxQue]

Given than Kal seats on two committees, I suppose than TJ would be a more avaliable fill-in chair, but that's open to discussion (until we find a subject).

Kal is no longer sitting on any committees, unfortunately.

I saw that, but afterwards.

[TJ in Oregon]

I have no issues being a fill-in chair, though if you went absent Max, it wouldn't be a very exciting committee!

[MaxQue]

I have no issues being a fill-in chair, though if you went absent Max, it wouldn't be a very exciting committee!

Indeed, but I need one to make Yankee happy. He is quite grunchy these days, you know.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have no issues being a fill-in chair, though if you went absent Max, it wouldn't be a very exciting committee!

Indeed, but I need one to make Yankee happy. He is quite grunchy these days, you know.

If there is anybody who needs to be made aware of that, I can assure you it most certainly isn't TJ.

Now get to work.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ah Mr. Chairman?

[MaxQue]

Ah Mr. Chairman?

We have no subject to discuss and we are only 2.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This isn't the only committee with less than three at this present and as long as you have two, I don't see any reason to delay based on that consideration alone.

As for the topic, you cover a wide array of important facets of Atlasia policy, between the two of you, I am sure you can come up with soemthing. This is important bandwidth and if it cannot be utilized effectively, then structural changes will be made.

It is clear that something will be changing with these at some point. If one of the committees is inactive on a repeated basis I can pretty much guarrantee it will be axed and its duties rolled into one of the others. It was a mistake to have four committees and I had hope that Scott's election would mean that we had one last chance to make it work (since he is the one who created two of them and thus why we have four), but when he declined to be a Chairman, I realized this was a false impression. Now he is not even a Senator anymore.

There are 36 bills in the queue, there are two court cases at present and a number of other matters that could potentially provide an area for a legal dispute or question. The deliberations over the Judicial Tenure Amendment, were very helpful. There is the Checks and Balances Amendment that was just introduced, you could give that the same treatment.

[TJ in Oregon]

Yes, Max, let's discuss theChecks and Balances Amendment.

[MaxQue]

Well, there isn't much to say about that Amendment.

It's an unacceptable invasion of legislative power into the juridicial one. Often, what's fair and constitutionnal isn't the popular thing.

We must not cede to populism.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So I take it that means the "water boarding" is entirely left in our court then?

As for the amendment, I would recommend bringining up the sponsor to answer why he proposed and what benefit he expects it to have if passed. That way we will already have some material to fall back on when it comes to articulate why it is or is not a bad idea on the Senate floor instead of having to guess.

If you finish up quickly, you might still get to have fun with Chinese water torture.

[MaxQue]

So I take it that means the "water boarding" is entirely left in our court then?

As for the amendment, I would recommend bringining up the sponsor to answer why he proposed and what benefit he expects it to have if passed. That way we will already have some material to fall back on when it comes to articulate why it is or is not a bad idea on the Senate floor instead of having to guess.

If you finish up quickly, you might still get to have fun with Chinese water torture.

Oh, I want to rush that issue to get to that more interesting thing. I don't think than there is much debate to do. Either you support it, either you oppose it. There is no details or nuances like for Tenure.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would still get the sponsor in here to advocate for it, at the very least.

I know people don't like the recommendation votes (hell they don't like the committees period), but we could work out a "Court Like" system where instead of votes each member posts an opinion on the matter and any included areas of controversy, then whatever a majority agrees to, becomes the majority opinion of the committee. It would be a rather simple matter to test that possibility here since there is just one issue to discuss.

That should be possible to do in just two days if you and TJ are attentative.

[TJ in Oregon]

I like the idea of having us write opinions. That would make having the committee at least marginally meaningful instead of us simply shooting this down and then reporting that we recommend against it to the whole senate.

Likewise, I agree it would be a terrible idea. If the Court is ignoring the constitution, impeach them. Otherwise, let them do their job. We need to not turn the Court into a political tool like it is in real life.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Maxy? Have tou contacted the sponsor yet?

[TNF]

I'm willing to take any and all questions the committee has regarding my proposed amendment.

[MaxQue]

I'm willing to take any and all questions the committee has regarding my proposed amendment.

Well, why? I just fail to see how that amendment is doing any good, could you cast any light on that?

[TJ in Oregon]

Yeah, I guess I more or less have the same question, why did you propose this? What do you hope it achieves?

[TNF]

I proposed it because I think that a further check upon the power of the judiciary is needed. Which is why I titled it the 'Checks and Balances' Amendment. We have the ability to override the President's veto, why not the ability to override a decision of the Supreme Court? The people should be the ultimate arbiters of the law, of course, and as their representatives, we should do our duty to overrule the Court when we find it has acted in error.

[Napoleon]

I proposed it because I think that a further check upon the power of the judiciary is needed. Which is why I titled it the 'Checks and Balances' Amendment. We have the ability to override the President's veto, why not the ability to override a decision of the Supreme Court? The people should be the ultimate arbiters of the law, of course, and as their representatives, we should do our duty to overrule the Court when we find it has acted in error.

We do have a check- constitutional amendments. Lost in this populist riff raff is the fact that all you are dojng is removing the public from the equation here. Given history that would be very irresponsible.

[TNF]

I proposed it because I think that a further check upon the power of the judiciary is needed. Which is why I titled it the 'Checks and Balances' Amendment. We have the ability to override the President's veto, why not the ability to override a decision of the Supreme Court? The people should be the ultimate arbiters of the law, of course, and as their representatives, we should do our duty to overrule the Court when we find it has acted in error.

We do have a check- constitutional amendments. Lost in this populist riff raff is the fact that all you are dojng is removing the public from the equation here. Given history that would be very irresponsible.

How is giving the Senate a veto over the actions of the Supreme Court 'removing the public from the equation'?

[Napoleon]

The normal way to override a court decision ks via constitutiknal amendment. You know, the Senate votes followed by public ratification. This is a Senate powe r grab.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. Chairman,

Unless there are secondary questions that you or TJ would like to ask, I would recommend proceeding with the composition of the aforementioned opinions, otherwise. I am very interested to see how this works out as an alternative to the recommendation vote system. Of course the Chairman will have to interpret these statements into a for or against stance, though such should be easy with a fairly simple single issue proposal.