SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Judiciary (Check and Balances Amendment)

[opebo]

I have a simple question.
Are long delays like in NCYankee vs. Atlasia are expected to happen again or it was a one-off occurence due to various concurring issues which shouldn't normally happen again?

It is not a normal occurrence and I for one would like the opportunity to see that it doesn't happen again.

Keep in mind that a delay is not impeachable conduct.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If I'm entitled to chime in, I'd argue that participating in political debate isn't what's at issue. It's participating in such a way as to compromise Atlasians' expectations of a fair trial that's at issue. It's possible to enter the fray without jeopardizing confidence in the judiciary. I'd ask, though, if that's how someone like Justice Bgwah has really operated. It is hard to confidently expect a fair trial from someone who has hurled personal insults at people over political affairs.

So my question for the Justices is this: If a jurist's behaviour can be seen as seriously compromising the integrity of the Supreme Court, should that individual be impeached? Moreover, do you believe that Justice Bgwah's activities constitute a breach of public confidence?

[bgwah]

Impeachment is removal for unlawful conduct. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to impeach any executive or judicial officer of the federal government.

It would help if the pro-impeachment Senators specified what unlawful conduct we are being impeached for.

Corruption, unwillingness or inability to perform the duties required, etc.  Certainly inactivity can and would fall into the latter category, although given that this only occurred with one case it hardly seems like it would apply.

Thank you for your prompt answers.

I do have to ask a follow-up question: The Atlasian Constitution grants the Senate the power of impeachment. It does not, however, require proof of criminal activity. In fact, it makes no mention of wrongdoing at all. In some ways, the original "impeachment" process outlined in the Third Constitution - the outcome of which is decided by a public poll - is more like a recall election initiated by the federal legislature.

Oakvale's Trial, Not Turnout Amendment eliminated the referendum requirement in cases in which a Senate supermajority votes to impeach an official. However, it did not introduce any requirement that impeachment be justified through facts and evidence, or even charges of wrongdoing.

With all of this in mind, I think it's worth approaching this process with some doubts about what the Atlasian meaning of "impeachment" really is. If it's really more of a recall process, or some kind of recall/impeachment hybrid, than a desire to "shake up" the Court (or even blatantly political reasons) would seem to be rationale enough for an individual Senator or citizen to vote in favor of impeachment.

Here's the question: Why is this interpretation of Article I, Section 2 incorrect? Can you cite any precedents in Atlasian history that argue in favor of your interpretation of the proper use of the impeachment process?

I can't recall anyone actually being impeached before. I think the President has usually just removed inactive cabinet remembers in the past, and a Justice has yet to be impeached. Although Marokai tried impeaching Sam once for not liking gay people, IIRC. But Sam was not impeached because having unpopular political opinions is not an impeachable offense. And Sam was even accused of letting his homophobia affect his decisions and still was not impeached. Nobody has accused me of letting my personal politics affect my decisions, and they can't because there is no evidence of such.

[opebo]

With all of this in mind, I think it's worth approaching this process with some doubts about what the Atlasian meaning of "impeachment" really is. If it's really more of a recall process, or some kind of recall/impeachment hybrid, than a desire to "shake up" the Court (or even blatantly political reasons) would seem to be rationale enough for an individual Senator or citizen to vote in favor of impeachment.

Here's the question: Why is this interpretation of Article I, Section 2 incorrect? Can you cite any precedents in Atlasian history that argue in favor of your interpretation of the proper use of the impeachment process?

The term 'impeachment' is used in the Atlasian Constitution.  The definition of 'impeachment' is 'unlawful conduct'.  The process stipulated is thus not a recall - it is precisely what it says it is: impeachment, and thus can only be constitutional if applied in a case of unlawful conduct - not because of political disagreements or other minor complaints.

[MaxQue]

Talking of political activity, I do think then given the subject of this game, that's inevitable.

I just think as long it's reasonable, there is no problem (what is unreasonable for me: running for office, being in the leadership of a party).

I however think than if a Justice involved into lobbying/public campaign for or against a bill or an idea (like bgwah with dog meat), he should recuse himself should a case about that law reach the Court.

Are the Justices are in agreement with my statement?

[Ebowed]

I however think than if a Justice involved into lobbying/public campaign for or against a bill or an idea (like bgwah with dog meat), he should recuse himself should a case about that law reach the Court.

Are the Justices are in agreement with my statement?

Not necessarily, as I can certainly see a scenario where, for example, one opposes the legalization of dog meat sales but would not be able to strike it down on any constitutional grounds.  I haven't read the legislation or Senate debate in question, but at a starting point I wouldn't see anything inherently unlawful in an attempt by the Senate to deregulate this activity although as a citizen I would not be in favor at all.  If Justice bgwah is passionate about the subject, certainly it is his right as an Atlasian to make his voice heard, and I don't believe that there is any substantiation to the allegation that this would negate his ability to approach the issue as a Justice with the utmost neutrality and professionalism.

[Ebowed]

Here's the question: Why is this interpretation of Article I, Section 2 incorrect? Can you cite any precedents in Atlasian history that argue in favor of your interpretation of the proper use of the impeachment process?

Actually, I did not assume we were discussing impeachment from a legal standpoint, and so I reject the premise of the question, as I provided my response more from philosophical grounds.  Obviously, if any of us had committed any crimes, we would not be presiding over the trials and convictions in the first place (that's what a conflict of interest looks like, not ruling on a piece of legislation on which you have previously voiced a citizen's opinion).  It wasn't illegal for the House of Representatives to impeach President Clinton, but it was hardly 'proper' either, if you catch my drift.  If it is anyone's desire to 'shake up' the Court they can and should pursue constitutional amendments to that effect rather than targeting the members of the Court themselves.

[opebo]

I however think than if a Justice involved into lobbying/public campaign for or against a bill or an idea (like bgwah with dog meat), he should recuse himself should a case about that law reach the Court.

Are the Justices are in agreement with my statement?

No, not necessarily, as I feel confident I would be capable of ruling on the constitutionality of a law (such a ban of the consumption of dog-meats) regardless of my opinion of the law itself. 

[bgwah]

I served six terms in the Senate. I probably wrote dozens of federal laws, and amended many which are critical to the game's functions (such as those governing crimes and elections).

When the Senate confirmed me, this was seen as more of an asset than a liability.

Are there any cases the Senate believes I made a somehow biased ruling?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must say that it gave me great comfort when every step of the way in my research to find that the precedents, laws etc that I used to base my arguments in the NC Yankee case in some ways almost always involved Ebowed in some way (want to count the number of times his name appeared in the brief?). Many also involved the other two justices as well. I wouldn't consider that comfort resulting from bias, but from knowledge of the subject matter. Though at one point I wondered what the grounds for recussal were and whether or not Ebowed might have to do so, since I am not experienced in these things.

[MaxQue]

Senator Ben, please?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Sorry all, having trouble finding direct quotes.  For "unnecessary delays", I'll point to the most recent case, which we all agree was delayed more than it should have been.  I can't find any activity by the Chief Justice that is sufficiently concerning in this area, and I will readily admit that I think there aren't sufficient grounds to impeach him, as far as I am concerned.  For Justice Bgwah, his comments in the debate over decriminalization of dog meat, and all subsequent debates on the issue, simply stretch beyond what is acceptable.  Likewise, the comments Justice Opebo has made towards other Atlasians, denigrating them and using personal attacks, is unacceptable behavior for someone of his stature and position.  As I find quotes I'll post them, but I wanted to give an overall look at my arguments.

[opebo]

Speaking of 'unnecessary delays', perhaps it is time we impeach Senator Benny for his sloth-like response.

[Ebowed]

Speaking of 'unnecessary delays', perhaps it is time we impeach Senator Benny for his sloth-like response.

That's the problem with fabricated narratives - they break down under even light scrutiny.  If getting into disagreements, using crude language and making opinions known were indicators of an inability to serve on the judicial branch, practically every Justice prior to our Court would have had to deal with the same articles of impeachment.  It is regrettable that the Senator wishes to waste everybody's time over what appears to be a personal vendetta.  Frankly it is unacceptable behavior for someone of his stature and position.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

It is regrettable that the Senator wishes to waste everybody's time over what appears to be a personal vendetta.  Frankly it is unacceptable behavior for someone of his stature and position.

  There's no vendetta, Mr. Chief Justice.  I am not the only one who's voiced concerns, nor have I based my case for impeachment entirely around the delays; it was merely on point worth mentioning.  The case is built more around the inappropriate participation in political debates by other members of this Court.

[Ebowed]

It is regrettable that the Senator wishes to waste everybody's time over what appears to be a personal vendetta.  Frankly it is unacceptable behavior for someone of his stature and position.

  There's no vendetta, Mr. Chief Justice.  I am not the only one who's voiced concerns, nor have I based my case for impeachment entirely around the delays; it was merely on point worth mentioning.  The case is built more around the inappropriate participation in political debates by other members of this Court.

Of course the second half of my post was rather facetious, but I maintain that there is absolutely nothing wrong with participation in political debates by members of the Court - surely, when I cast a ballot on a referendum the other day, I was voicing my opinion on an issue that has been presented to the Atlasian public.  The medium in which I choose to do that does not seem particularly relevant, as I think most people here are able to understand that when one of us speaks out on an issue, we are not issuing rulings.  I know that you understand that, so what exactly is the problem?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

*checks in from LOA*

I have no problem with a somewhat politically engaged Court (and it seems contradictory to impeach simultaneously for both lack of activity and "inappropriate" activity). I will not vote in favor of impeachment.

*checks back out*

It sort of reminds me of the second half of the Dred Scott decision, does it not? Ruling on the merits of a case brought by someone who you have already denied the right to bring such suit.

[MaxQue]

The week is finished.

I suppose we should vote a recommendation to the Whole Senate, if I follow well.

Also, we need a deputy chair (or whatever is the official name). Ben or Nix, interested?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I guess call him whatever you like.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

NAY on the impeachment of Chief Justice Ebowed

AYE on the impeachment of Justice Opebo

AYE on the impeachment of Justice Bgwah

[MaxQue]

Oh, what the hell. I was really on the fence on one of those votes and I may change my mind at the Whole Senate vote.

Given the relative inactivity in the Senate and of some Senators (but I'll say no name in public, if the hat fits you...) and the fact I'm willing to give another chance to the Court...

NAY on the impeachment of Chief Justice Ebowed

NAY on the impeachment of Justice opebo

NAY on the impeachment of Justice bgwah

Don't ever dare to take unacceptable delays in another case, through. If your cases come back again here, I doubt I'll be as conciliant.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I thought that if the committee votes it down, it doesn't go to the whole Senate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The whole purpose of inserting the committee was to prevent a rogue impeachmeant article from  someonel like a wormyguy for instance from making it all the way to Seante trial. If it is not worded as such, then the whole purpose of having the committee involved is/was pointless.

[MaxQue]

The whole purpose of inserting the committee was to prevent a rogue impeachmeant article from  someonel like a wormyguy for instance from making it all the way to Seante trial. If it is not worded as such, then the whole purpose of having the committee involved is/was pointless.

You mean, like recommending to the Senate how to vote on bills?

It's my opinion, too. That thing must go on the Senate floor, next.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, the whole reason for involving the committee at all when we amended the process last year was to keep rogue impeachment articles from reacing the Senate. I think Worms tried to impeach Polnut or someone last year and Ebowed just ignored it. It was a trade off. We strengthened the language so that they can't be ignored, but on the flip side, they were to be approved by the committee before they reached the floor so the rogue articles would be canned. That was the understanding I think that most of the Senate was opperating on when it was so modified.


How is this supposed to work. Ebowed is supposed to preside over all impeachments save for himself, so he has to preside over Bgwah' and Opebo's. I have to preside over Ebowed's. Then suppose we were to impeach Ebowed first, and B&O are still underway, what happens then?