SENATE BILL: Judiciary Branch Realignment Amendment (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: NC Yankee for Governor Tyrion

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's showtime Tyrion, since TNF and Nappy are still enjoying their threesomes with the clogging rule.

As I said before, I would prefer this as complex though it may be, to a term limit arrangement. I would gladly go into detail (yes, that level of detail) as to why but I didn't expect to drop down so far in the queue to this today and don't have time right now.

 Of course there is a good way and a bad way to design this and thus I hope to review and amend it to ensure it is the former and not the latter, but once again I lack the time right now.

Which works out rather well, since it gives Tyrion a chance to take the lead in advocacy for this. Knock em dead, man.

[President Tyrion]

Alright, I'll have a go at it.

I think the first point of business is to prove that something needs to change with regard to the Judiciary system of Atlasia. Clearly, there has been some traction to that end, as there has been some support for tenures, and President Nix has said he wants to bust up the system entirely and start afresh. The reasons are many.

First, the Courts are rather insulated, even from our very politically aware electorate. There's not an inherent problem with some insulation, as the Courts do need to be an unbiased body, but this amount is unacceptable. How often do we see opebo, bgwah, or Ebowed? Do we ever even interact? The answer, unequivocally, is "no." While the executive and legislative branches make every effort to be accessible, there is not even a window through which we can gaze upon the Courts, let alone be included in their decisions. Why not have a computer decide the outcome of every case? We would have the same level of engagement, after all. There is nothing to stop the Courts from being the way they are: distant, relatively unresponsive, and virtually unchecked.

The Courts are static. One month = one year in the "real world" so we've seen the Justices hold their offices for obscene terms. The problem isn't necessarily that they should be dead by now, but that these Justices have held a huge amount of power for an extremely long time. There are two sides of the coin here. Tenure would limit their time in office (but this was summarily rejected by the Senate), and a People's Court would perhaps lessen their power. This is a democracy; we don't need to see one group of people hold unilateral power for the better part of a century.

The Courts are unilateral. There is no method for recourse. If a Justice makes a decision, you are forced to abide by it. It's not terrible in theory, but it has become unacceptable in practice. I have been told in private that this bill was fantastic, not for the technical aspects, but as a check on "abuse of power" by the Court. That might be an isolated opinion, but there's really nothing that can be done if it were to be the case. Furthermore, the decisions end up happening miles away from the public eye. If there were to be abuses of power, we would never see them, never hear of them, and never act upon them. Naturally, the Supreme Court should be the keepers of the Constitution, so the People's Court acts below the SC. However, it's important to note that overturning a decision requires a specific burden of proof; if the people believe one thing, and the Courts another, it's a strong check of power to force the Courts to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. And then, the PC would be aware of its decision being overturned, and there would be a check of the people on the Court in order to determine an abuse of power, which doesn't exist currently because no one actually knows what the court is doing.

A People's Court in Atlasia would function better than in real life. The citizens of Atlasia are politically aware and acutely aware of the law. Naturally, the process may become politicized, but that is the ONLY case in which the SC should be able to step in (besides an obvious misinterpretation of the law, which is actually very unlikely in this Atlasian climate due to the nature of the electorate).

Hopefully that addresses a few concerns. There is obviously more to this issue than just what I wrote above. I urge you Senators to read through the Judicial Committee thread if possible to see my opinions on more of the issues at hand, and feel free to ask those questions here or PM me. 

[Maxwell]

The idea of the People's court is very interesting.

[opebo]

How often do we see opebo, bgwah, or Ebowed? Do we ever even interact? The answer, unequivocally, is "no."

What do you mean by 'see'?  You see text by us when there is a court case.  I'm not sure in what other sense we would be 'seen'.

[President Tyrion]

How often do we see opebo, bgwah, or Ebowed? Do we ever even interact? The answer, unequivocally, is "no."

What do you mean by 'see'?  You see text by us when there is a court case.  I'm not sure in what other sense we would be 'seen'.

Well, this is a start. Hearing your opinions on non-court cases would be a start.

The point to be made here is that someone like me has never seen or heard from any of you. You were all appointed before my time, all made your cases for your positions before my time, and were only really in the public eye for your appointment WELL before my time. And I'm not unique in this respect. I know close to nothing about the people who are meant to defend our great constitution from those who cross it, and it's a darn-tootin' shame. There's nothing to keep all of your positions archaic and antiquated, because, let's face it, you were appointed practically a century ago.

[bgwah]

There was recently a move to impeach me for having non-court related opinions. Now I am accused of not having enough? There is no pleasing everyone here.

You don't know anything about the court? Speaking for myself, I am a regular poster on this forum and have been for years. Any curiosity about my previous involvement in Atlasia can be satisfied rather easily through the Wiki.

As for the proposal itself, we do have randomly selected juries for criminal trials. I mention this because it has been very difficult in the past to actually recruit people, have them actually pay attention to the trial, and come up with a decision. I believe we would experience similar difficulties with a people's court.

----

And if I make speak freely, this feels like retaliation for a decision we made that a minority of Atlasians are not pleased with.

[TNF]

This has my full support.

[President Tyrion]

There was recently a move to impeach me for having non-court related opinions. Now I am accused of not having enough? There is no pleasing everyone here.

That's not what I mean. Allowing non-Court opinions to color your decisions would be bad, and I'm not accusing you of that, or really making it an issue. The converse is also not the point; it's not about you voicing your opinions, it's about people like me having a voice at all. "Not hearing from you" is more a euphemism for a vast majority of Atlasians not having any particular say in this branch of government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am aware of your past involvement; a great deal of the Pacific legislature's concern is to get the region in the form it was in during the heyday of your governorship. However, we shouldn't really be judging you on successes, which in Atlasian years, were decades ago. Things change, yet the court remains static.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that if we hardwire the process into the Constitution, as opposed to hand-waving about jury trials thrown in as a mere reference to the real world, things could work out. With that said, could you elaborate on your concerns a bit?

----

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not retaliation (for what?) from me, I assure you

[Adam Griffin]

[President Tyrion]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Question: Should this stay in? I'm on the fence.

[opebo]

The point to be made here is that someone like me has never seen or heard from any of you. You were all appointed before my time, all made your cases for your positions before my time, and were only really in the public eye for your appointment WELL before my time. And I'm not unique in this respect. I know close to nothing about the people who are meant to defend our great constitution from those who cross it, and it's a darn-tootin' shame. There's nothing to keep all of your positions archaic and antiquated, because, let's face it, you were appointed practically a century ago.

I can't speak for the others (though I suspect they are similar to me), but I come from an antediluvian time, better days, when something called the JCP created a very positive and enjoyable game environment. 

I honestly think our longevity recommends us - bgwah, Ebowed, and myself have put in years of care about Atlasia and the Atlas.  We love this place, and we love all of you.  We're stewards of something - everything really.

There's never been a single case of 'abuse of power' by the Court, and the dirty little secret is the reason for all of these machinations is simply political - first the Right was unhappy with us because we were supposedly too left-leaning, now the new Left is unhappy with us because we're not revolutionary enough.  Through it all we've been precisely what we're supposed to be - sage, non-ideological trustees of the game, Atlasia, and the constitution.

[President Tyrion]

I can't speak for the others (though I suspect they are similar to me), but I come from an antediluvian time, better days, when something called the JCP created a very positive and enjoyable game environment. 

I don't doubt that the JCP did good things; from what I've read on the wiki, I would have fit in just fine. The problem is that their history, while long and storied, is just history. It's not quite antediluvian, but it is necessarily an era out of touch with modern issues. That's not to say that the present justices are out of touch, but we're losing focus of the finish line here. This Court is older than any court "the real world" has seen, and, yet, nothing will be done to reform it, in your eyes. Is it not going to be a problem if the court is 150 or 200 years old with no checks on its power? Sure, Justices don't answer to politics, but they do answer to recency.

And remember, under this proposal, you stay in office, and the Court can be maintained forever if you so desire. You'll be an overseer: the final line of defense between the people and the constitution. I think all that a proposal like this does is move the people a little closer to the document that guards them. You can always step in, if need be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that shall not change. You are still stewards of the constitution, and your experience is obviously welcomed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe "the left", but not me, in any case. I just want to see some Court reform in large part for the reasons I've already outlined. Revolution has no part in it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't doubt that the JCP did good things; from what I've read on the wiki, I would have fit in just fine. The problem is that their history, while long and storied, is just history. It's not quite antediluvian, but it is necessarily an era out of touch with modern issues.

^
I hate to say it Bgwah, but I told you so. This is what you get, for getting "tired".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Question: Should this stay in? I'm on the fence.

Yes, should the people's court might become unwieldy and if a dispute arises, we could face June 2009 times a million. The Supreme Court would be albe ot move faster.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^
I have concerns about the way these two are worded.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The failure of Section 3, clause 2 to incorporate the bolded part of Section 2, Clause 4 may serve to render that critical authority, none-existant.

The first one sets up two sources of problems, 1) Ruling out of bias, and 2) Ruling in Contrary to the constitution and law. The second clause one gives the court appellate authority in the former, but not in the latter.

[bore]

I think 13 is too large a jury number, as it will almost certainly end up being incredibly unwieldy and difficult to orchestrate. Perhaps 7 would be a better number?

[Maxwell]

I think 13 is too large a jury number, as it will almost certainly end up being incredibly unwieldy and difficult to orchestrate. Perhaps 7 would be a better number?

I agree with this, but 7 may be too much too. I think 5 is probably acceptable.

[President Tyrion]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^
I have concerns about the way these two are worded.

Well, that's word for word what's in the Constitution, except I replaced Supreme Court with CSA. I'm not exactly sure what your concern is here, but if it's with saying (paraphrasing) "The CSA has the power to nullify unconstitutional laws", maybe there's a way to tighten the wording to point out that both the People's Court, and the Supreme Court in appellate cases, may strike down an unconstitutional federal or regional law. If your concern is elsewhere, now is a good time to fix it, but I would point out that the wording has been that way since this constitution was adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The failure of Section 3, clause 2 to incorporate the bolded part of Section 2, Clause 4 may serve to render that critical authority, none-existant.

The first one sets up two sources of problems, 1) Ruling out of bias, and 2) Ruling in Contrary to the constitution and law. The second clause one gives the court appellate authority in the former, but not in the latter.
[/quote]

I agree. Perhaps we could make Section 3, Clause 2 say:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What say you, Senators?

[President Tyrion]

I think 13 is too large a jury number, as it will almost certainly end up being incredibly unwieldy and difficult to orchestrate. Perhaps 7 would be a better number?

I agree with this, but 7 may be too much too. I think 5 is probably acceptable.

Aha! Yes, I only had 13 in there as a placeholder. I'd like to hear what bgwah, Ebowed, and opebo have to say about the size of the jury, since they'll still be in charge of its selection.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Gass3268]

I think 13 is too large a jury number, as it will almost certainly end up being incredibly unwieldy and difficult to orchestrate. Perhaps 7 would be a better number?

I agree with this, but 7 may be too much too. I think 5 is probably acceptable.

I agree with this as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^
I have concerns about the way these two are worded.

Well, that's word for word what's in the Constitution, except I replaced Supreme Court with CSA. I'm not exactly sure what your concern is here, but if it's with saying (paraphrasing) "The CSA has the power to nullify unconstitutional laws", maybe there's a way to tighten the wording to point out that both the People's Court, and the Supreme Court in appellate cases, may strike down an unconstitutional federal or regional law. If your concern is elsewhere, now is a good time to fix it, but I would point out that the wording has been that way since this constitution was adopted.

Yea that is my first concern. The wording was designed for a singular entity and now that it is being changed, it should probably be altered as well to indicate it. Especially when dealing with such words as "sole" when discussing something that now has too parts. I will work on some changes once the present amendment is over, but I would also like some legal experts to make some recommendations. A functional Judiciary Committee would have come in handy to handle such a process ahead of time, without delaying the floor.

[President Tyrion]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^
I have concerns about the way these two are worded.

Well, that's word for word what's in the Constitution, except I replaced Supreme Court with CSA. I'm not exactly sure what your concern is here, but if it's with saying (paraphrasing) "The CSA has the power to nullify unconstitutional laws", maybe there's a way to tighten the wording to point out that both the People's Court, and the Supreme Court in appellate cases, may strike down an unconstitutional federal or regional law. If your concern is elsewhere, now is a good time to fix it, but I would point out that the wording has been that way since this constitution was adopted.

Yea that is my first concern. The wording was designed for a singular entity and now that it is being changed, it should probably be altered as well to indicate it. Especially when dealing with such words as "sole" when discussing something that now has too parts. I will work on some changes once the present amendment is over, but I would also like some legal experts to make some recommendations. A functional Judiciary Committee would have come in handy to handle such a process ahead of time, without delaying the floor.

Well, I tried to make it easier to call the court system a "sole" body by giving it an overarching name (and, speaking of which, we can change that, if people think of a better name....I'm not sensitive about making changes). I mean, it's a difficult thing to finagle the wording; let's see if someone can't come up with something better.

And yes, I'm serious. Feel free to change anything here. I'm not the type who really cares if you offer 100 amendments, as long as they're constructive (although I'm sure Yankee would rather hope that you keep his work down a little ).