SENATE BILL: Judicial Tenure Amendment (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Since when it is the court's job to be a slave to popular will? The Court's job is to give the finger to the public whenever the popular will goes outside legal means to achieve it's end or violates the fundamental civil or political rights of a minority group.

That is our job. To change the laws though a legal process in response to the people. Your job is to enforce them and theirs is to make sure it followed said process based of the Constitution and precedent. If precedent is flawed or the Constitution itself is flawed, then we have something called Constitutional amendments. If they are incompetent, unethical or innactive, we have automatic impeachement proceedings put before the Senate, which I tend to think will work considering we have never had the expulsion of a Senator through a similarly organized system (tied to activity) become political.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More high minded theory and rhetoric and nothing in the realm of reality. Justices are going to be political by their very nature because they're the result of a political process.

[Napoleon]

Everyone here is searching for a solution to a fake problem that's why you can't figure out how to aplroach this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"Slave to the popular will?" Ridiculous.

The public will has guided the actual Supreme Court's decisions since its inception, and for good reason. You cannot produce a farsighted ruling without taking this step. Considering how public attitudes have shifted over the years and predicting how they will continue to shift is an essential step in weighing any case. When the Supreme Court has failed to take these attitudes into account, its rulings have been ignored or quickly superseded.

The primary failing of our current judiciary is that it does not require any responsiveness of this kind. Two-thirds of the Court predates our Constitution. I would bet that an outright majority of current Atlasian voters were not even registered when Ebowed was appointed to the Court in 2010, to say nothing of Opebo's appointment during then-President Ebowed's first term nearly a decade ago. "Judicial tenure" has been proposed as a solution to this problem, and while I support that moderate reform, the reality is that it will do very little to fix the institution's fundamental problems. If we pass this amendment as written, we'll still have a judiciary composed of three members appointed by presidents who most Atlasians don't even remember, and that will probably remain the norm for as long as Atlasia is around.

Typically when the Court has gotten itself into trouble has been when it has bowed to public/political pressure. In Dred Scott, you had a President whose signature first year agenda item wasn't a legislative initiative or some reform, but "wrenching a final solution on the question of slavery out of the Supreme Court". That wasn't their job and it wasn't his job and the court suffered for that "responsiveness" for years. Their job was to interpret the law as it stood at the time and large segments of that decision were based on faulty legal reasonsings.

The very problem with our Supreme Court in RL is because always throughout time people look to it to respond to their will instead to of as what it is suppose to do.

Responding to the will of the people is not in the job description, in my opinion. Their job is to interpret the law and constitution, not alter it to suit the desires of a temporary political majority. To the extent that they have failed in that is an issue of competence, or rather lack thereof.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More high minded theory and rhetoric and nothing in the realm of reality. Justices are going to be political by their very nature because they're the result of a political process.

Because that is what the political culture encourages people to want and to expect.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will grant that there is an exception of sorts that some might call responsiveness and that would to what extent that I isolated from the public sentiments and to the extent that they are is a problem that would say leads people to doubt the court, but being aware of public sentiment and jostling that in with the considerations of how to interpret law are two different things. I would glady detail this further if someone is unsure of what exactly I mean by this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So are any amendments forthcoming on Snowguy's ideas or about the mechanics of the current structure?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

For some reason I didn't expect this to be anything but controversial and heated all the way through.


Nearing last chance to change that here people.

[Napoleon]

I call for a final vote

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And people wonder why the Senate never does anything big. It isn't obstruction, it is disinterest and inactivity.


Senators, a final vote is now open on the underlying Amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY!!!

[TNF]

Aye.

[Napoleon]

Nay

[Sbane]

Nay

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[Gass3268]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Tied 3-3.

Bore, Maxy, Polnut, and TJ have yet to vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ah, I must be mistaken here, but I thought we were having a vote on a critical piece of a legislation here? Or as Joe Biden would say....


Come on people, lets get the votes in.

[bore]

Aye

I've been mulling this vote for a while and while I don't think it's perfect, it's better than what we have.

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye

I've also been questing whether or not this will be a good idea and worry about partisanship on the court, but as Gass pointed out the current system is unrealistic.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

MAXY!!! POLNUT, WE'RE WAITIN ON YA!!!

[MaxQue]

Aye

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Nay

Abstain

[President Tyrion]

Hello Senators,

Sorry to interrupt your proceedings with the thoughts of a simple citizen, but reading Snowguy's post gave me an idea for possible reform.

Now, I tend to side with NCY when it comes to constantly rotating Justices, although I do see the point that 24 "years" is a sufficient period for turnover. However, I think lifetime appointments are the best possible solution, and if there haven't been particularly many problems other than boredom with the current three (and I know there is disagreement on the motivation for this Amendment in the first place, which I don't necessarily understand, but whatever).

With that said, lifetime appointments, are, for lack of a better term, utterly boring and can leave the Supreme Court insulated from the people. While that's not necessarily a bad thing for objectivity, it is a bad thing for activity and interest. Well, there must be a middle ground, right? How can we keep Justices objective and the people interested? (And if you don't think that "interest" is even a goal worth mentioning, consider that your position is built on the interest of the citizens voting for you, and the strength of your position is only so strong as the strength of Atlasia as a whole.)

Well, Snowguy mentioned a trial by jury. I understand that juries can be excessively partial when it comes to this sort of stuff. The way I see it, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that a jury made up of VERY interested citizens, as is the case in Atlasia, will have already formed opinions about the case. Given the opportunity to let those opinions foment, they will create factions, and perhaps use their majority to hinder the rights of the minority (see, of course, the Federalist Papers). However, a jury has, of course, many positive aspects. More minds means a diversity of ideas and a barometer on public opinion. Truly, if jurors did not have political motivation, it would be a rather perfect system.

How do we minimize the damage of politics, while maximizing the Court's understanding of both the law and the public eye? We create an appellate system.

First, a case is brought to the Court, and a jury is assembled. Both sides have representation, and the case is heard normally. One of the three justices presides (perhaps in a rotating system), providing legal input (basically doing "Judgely" things).

Then, the (odd-numbered) jury reaches a verdict. Naturally, the losing side will call foul. "Partisanship!" they scream, and there is no doubt we will hear it every time. However, there as an appellate process. This process should be tightly restricted, only if the jury can be shown to have been moderately partisan. Then, the case shall be heard by the three justices (the same ones we know and love, surely). Now, the burden of proof is on the appellate party to provide the shadow of doubt that there has been some partisanship. A slight doubt on the part of a justice, and, voila, the case will be heard by the justices.

On the flip side, the justices can rule, and SHOULD utilized this power often, that the case was tried properly, and that no further action is necessary from the court. The judges, in the first part of the appeals process, then, should determine standing and the right of the appellate party to even appeal, and should probably wield that duty with an iron fist, so as to make sure that the process is not abused by parties looking to waste government time.

In the case of a deadlocked jury after a certain amount of time, the 3 judges can step in immediately an rehear the case.

What do you guys think? Is this a tenable option? It has its strengths and weaknesses, but I think it could increase activity and still provide the absolutely necessary objectivity. I'm new, of course, so feel free to correct me if my logic is faulty.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The biggest problem with it would be complexity.