Refuse Certiorari Act (Passed)

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsored by: Lief

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm sorry if I"m mistaken, but isn't this the Court's prerogative not to give certiorari for a case?

[TNF]

I support this. End the vile McCarthyite tactics of this pathetic administration.

[Cranberry]

I'm sorry if I"m mistaken, but isn't this the Court's prerogative not to give certiorari for a case?

I was under this impression as well...

[Lief 🗽]

That unfortunately does not seem to be the case:

I don't believe we have any discretion in whether or not to hear a trial. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. If the Justice department wishes to proceed with this despite the concerns raised we will assign a justice to preside.

[SWE]

Even if you don't think that the current administration is participating in witchhunts, this would keep future administrations from attempting to. Besides, the Court should have a right to reject frivolous cases like Atlasia v. Ogis. I'll support this.

[Cranberry]

Okay. Well, under these circumstances, I guess this is sensible and I will support this act.

[ZuWo]

This doesn't make a lot of sense. We need to give both the prosecution and the defense a chance to present all of their arguments in order to make it possible for the Court to decide whether the case in question is of merit or frivolous.

But if you want to go ahead and pass this at least make sure the title of the bill is amended. To suggest that there have been any "witchhunts" is quite ridiculous and below the dignity of this body.

[TNF]

This doesn't make a lot of sense. We need to give both the prosecution and the defense a chance to present all of their arguments in order to make it possible for the Court to decide whether the case in question is of merit or frivolous.

But if you want to go ahead and pass this at least make sure the title of the bill is amended. To suggest that there have been any "witchhunts" is quite ridiculous and below the dignity of this body.

Says the lead inquisitor.

[Prince of Salem]

This doesn't make a lot of sense. We need to give both the prosecution and the defense a chance to present all of their arguments in order to make it possible for the Court to decide whether the case in question is of merit or frivolous.

But if you want to go ahead and pass this at least make sure the title of the bill is amended. To suggest that there have been any "witchhunts" is quite ridiculous and below the dignity of this body.

Seconded.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I think that in the name of separation of powers, if anything else, the Supreme Court should have a prerogative to decide not to hear a case (with explanation provided, of course).

[Cranberry]

Yes, I hold pretty much the same opinion as Kalwejt.
Thus, as stated, I think this is sensible, and support it.

[Senator Cris]

My amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The current title is not acceptable.

[Lief 🗽]

I object to the amendment.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I object to the amendment.

I believe the content of this act is strong statement enough.

[Lief 🗽]

Well, mostly I'd just prefer a vote on the amendment, especially because this legislation (including the title) was introduced on behalf of a constituent.

[Prince of Salem]

The bill as amended by Senator Cris has my 100% support.

[Adam Griffin]

People need to remember this dark and dreary time in the Atlasian judicial system. The bill's name will help with that.

[TNF]

People need to remember this dark and dreary time in the Atlasian judicial system. The bill's name will help with that.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

People need to remember this dark and dreary time in the Atlasian judicial system. The bill's name will help with that.

I know you want to make statement, but I still think content of the bill is a strong statement enough. The Senate is already proceeding cringeworthy slowly, despite best efforts of our President-elect, so I see no point of prolonging passage of a bill that should easily pass for a title's sake.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This doesn't make a lot of sense. We need to give both the prosecution and the defense a chance to present all of their arguments in order to make it possible for the Court to decide whether the case in question is of merit or frivolous.

I believe in independence of our Supreme Court. An independent court cannot take orders from the Attorney General to hear a case.

I'm sure the Court should be required to provide a satisfactory explanation why the certiorari has been resufed and that's good enough.

[bore]

Senators a vote is now open on Cris's amendment, please vote aye nay or abstain

[windjammer]

Abstain,
I sincerely don't care about the name of a bill.

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[SWE]

Abstain

I sincerely don't care about the name of a bill.