The Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) PASSED

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I like Kingpoleon's idea of having Regional Justices be jointly appointed by the president and the governors. I would definitely consider supporting this proposal if that change was incorporated.

I don't agree that there is no danger in upsetting the balance of power, however: in the past year alone, we've seen separatist movements take hold in two Regions as well as an attempt to allow Regions to mint their own currencies, tax "imports" from other Regions, and abolish the Senate's power to regulate interregional commerce. Just as the Regions need recourse to protect the integrity of their institutions, the federal government must be able to maintain its authority against opportunistic assaults. As the Supreme Court has (and will presumably retain) the power to set binding policy in regards to Constitutional interpretation, I'm not comfortable in allowing the Regions to unilaterally appoint a majority of that body.

[Leinad]

I get what you're saying regarding the balance of power, Truman, but I still think it's a minor concern (although it is indeed a concern--one that I think Kingpoleon's idea clears up).

Example: let's say that the NNP starts back up again, they're trying to get the new North to separate, and there's a court case regarding their right to do that. Why would the South and West regions support that if it wasn't the right thing to do? Can you think of any specific idea that will hurt Atlasia that all 3 regional justices would sign on to? It's hard to imagine.

A work-around:

Have the Governor nominate judges, the regional legislatures vote for approval, but the President will have the power of vetoing the justice and asking for their resignation. For the chief justice, the President will nominate him or her, the federal legislature approves it, and any two governors can veto it. The chief justice is accountable to the regions. It's possible the chief justice doesn't need the governors to be able to veto it, but otherwise it could be hated by Governors.


There! No need to overturn or retry the principle vote,

Kingpoleon, that's brilliant! It's a good way to eliminate both of Truman's concerns: the balance of power problem and the problem of that pesky principle vote giving the President power to appoint Supreme Court justices.

I also presume, Kingpoleon, that the non-regional Associate Justice will be nominated/approved in the same way you're suggesting the Chief Justice would be, correct?

How would the Senate factor into this, exactly? That's the big question as of now--especially if we're going to follow that pesky principle vote from earlier (although I still don't think we're completely bound by it--that's ultimately Truman's call).

Hopefully we can iron out the details and put it to a vote ASAP. And hopefully the vote will be affirmative--the Bore-Kingpoleon plan would be great for Atlasia.

[Potus]

I have no right to speak here, but I would highly recommend a provision giving the Senate the power to charter specialized courts. This could deal with issues ranging from business specialization to national security issues.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I offer the following counter-proposal (essentially a mixture of Bore's plan and Kingpoleon's idea).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Bore is willing to withdraw his proposal, we could hold a principle vote on this sometime this weekend.

I have no right to speak here,

To the contrary, you have every right to speak here - the more citizen input, the better!

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Essentially a Federal-Regional partnership regarding the judicial branch is what's being proposed. I'm open to the idea but we need a mechanism to limit conflicts of interest that could happen between between the the courts.

[bore]

I haven't officially proposed anything, for the record.

Regarding Truman's proposal, it depends on how it works because there are multiple options. How about the Governor proposing with the regional legislature confirming, but granting both the senate and the President the right to veto? Or vice versa.

[Adam Griffin]

I do not like the idea of the next President being able to directly confirm all of the Justices at the onset of the game, especially considering that we have no idea what duration (if any) will be prescribed to their terms. I would think most other people share that concern as well; it's a total wildcard and vests too much influence in one person at the onset. I really think it is necessary to preserve the existing Justices in some capacity. Theoretically, each could serve as a Region's Justice, but I'm not sure we could craft any sort of enforcement mechanism to guarantee that. Additionally 2 of the Justices live in the same Region.

If we do end up going this route, though, then the notion of separate regional CJOs needs to be axed.

[Kingpoleon]

I offer the following counter-proposal (essentially a mixture of Bore's plan and Kingpoleon's idea).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Bore is willing to withdraw his proposal, we could hold a principle vote on this sometime this weekend.

Regional Justices would be: Nominated by region's executive > Confirmed by regional assembly > Agreed to/Vetoed by President.

Chief Justice would be: Nominated by President > Confirmed by Senate > Agreed to/Vetoed By Governors

Associate Justice would be: Nominated by President > Confirmed by Senate


Three steps involve the President, two involve the Senate, two involve the Governors, and one involves regional assemblies. It's the ultimate balance of power, as the Chief Justice represents everyone, the Regional Justices represent the regions, and the Associate Justice represents the federal government.

[Blair]

My only concern would be that we're weakening the power of the Presidency even further; would the Chief Justice have any specific powers that would mean the President's pick is of more important?

[Simfan34]

Maybe we could have a system where a Justice is allocated to sit as a circuit justice for each region, and then the full Court sits en banc to be reheard on appeal as the full Supreme Court? Perhaps it could be consolidated with each regional judicial system.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

My only concern would be that we're weakening the power of the Presidency even further; would the Chief Justice have any specific powers that would mean the President's pick is of more important?

I tend to agree with this. Sadly, I can't think of a way to fix this problem without making the confirmation process even more drawn out than it already is.

Basically, these are the ideas that have been discussed so far:

   • Bore's Plan: 2 Justices appointed by the Pres., 3 Justices appointed by the Regions
   • My Plan: 2 Justices appointed by the Pres., 3 Justices appointed jointly by the Pres. and the Regions
   • Kingpoleon's Plan: 1 Justice appointed by the Pres., 1 Chief Justice appointed by the Pres.
     (Regions have veto power), 3 Justices appointed by the Regions (Pres. has veto power)
   • Status Quo: All Justices appointed by the Pres.

Of the first three proposals, I prefer my plan (obviously), but all have their pros and cons. I worry that Kingpoleon's proposal would make it very hard to fill vacancies on the Court in a timely manner. For example, nominating and confirming the Chief Justice would require the concurrence of the president, a majority of the Senate, and all three governors under this proposal. That seems like a recipe for gridlock to me (though I appreciate the effort to balance all the competing concerns that have been raised, which is no easy feat).

I don't know - I love the idea behind Bore's plan, but I'm not sure how we could make it work without compromising the power of either the Regions or the presidency.

[Simfan34]

Maybe we could have a system where a Justice is allocated to sit as a circuit justice for each region, and then the full Court sits en banc to be reheard on appeal as the full Supreme Court? Perhaps it could be consolidated with each regional judicial system.

I think this would work well with the Bore plan-- each regional justice rides circuit in their own region, and then on appeal the case is reheard by the full court.

[Leinad]

I like Kingpoleon's plan the best, although it might need more tinkering. I'd be okay with Truman's if the regional legislatures get a say--after all, the regional associate justices will be the regional judicial officers as well.

Either way, I think Bore's basic idea is a must have--where it's increased to 5 and merged with the regional justices.

I do not like the idea of the next President being able to directly confirm all of the Justices at the onset of the game, especially considering that we have no idea what duration (if any) will be prescribed to their terms. I would think most other people share that concern as well; it's a total wildcard and vests too much influence in one person at the onset. I really think it is necessary to preserve the existing Justices in some capacity. Theoretically, each could serve as a Region's Justice, but I'm not sure we could craft any sort of enforcement mechanism to guarantee that. Additionally 2 of the Justices live in the same Region.

I totally agree, the current justices should be maintained.

Here's an idea: the Regional Associate Justices get appointed first, with the understanding that one of them appoints a current justice. At that point, the other two current justices are appointed as Chief Justice and Federal Associate Justice. The enforcement method would be the President's veto. That might not be fair to whichever region is doing this, so unless they want to appoint the justice voluntarily, we should go with another plan...

Idea #2: we start off with 6 justices, keeping the three we have. When one of the Federal Associate Justices resigns, we don't appoint a replacement, we just maintain 5 from then on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, the basic idea is that those offices are being merged into the Supreme Court, unless I severely misunderstood Bore's original plan.

I worry that Kingpoleon's proposal would make it very hard to fill vacancies on the Court in a timely manner. For example, nominating and confirming the Chief Justice would require the concurrence of the president, a majority of the Senate, and all three governors under this proposal. That seems like a recipe for gridlock to me (though I appreciate the effort to balance all the competing concerns that have been raised, which is no easy feat).

It already needs the President and the Senate, and it's actually not all three governors, but merely two of them. Or at least two of them not vetoing--it could presumably be done without explicit approval, just a lack of vetoes.

It would only be slightly more of a recipe for gridlock than the current process. Hopefully the occasional need for compromise and the increase from 3 to 5 would raise the quality of the court.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'd be okay with Truman's if the regional legislatures get a say--after all, the regional associate justices will be the regional judicial officers as well.

I'm okay with this. Suppose we had the Senate confirm the (federal) Justices and the Regional legislatures confirm the Associate (Regional) Justices? That would avoid a lengthy confirmation process while still giving the Regions a say in the matter.

[bore]

Yeah, I'm happy with Kingpoleon's proposal. Although maybe I'd just leave the chief justice to the president without a regional veto.

Anyway I think to some extent gridlock can be seen as a feature and not a bug. Elections happen often enough that they won't last for that long and a gridlock would also give a campaign issue for a multitude of elections.

[Kingpoleon]

Yeah, I'm happy with Kingpoleon's proposal. Although maybe I'd just leave the chief justice to the president without a regional veto.

Anyway I think to some extent gridlock can be seen as a feature and not a bug. Elections happen often enough that they won't last for that long and a gridlock would also give a campaign issue for a multitude of elections.

As it seems I've worked okay on bore's plan, I would gladly help anyone confused or anyone, such as Leinad, who wants to tinker with the Bore-Kingpoleon Plan.

I really don't like bypassing the Governor or Assembly on their regional legal leader. I'm afraid my way is the only way not to do that while still using bore's plan. I think that the Chief Justice should be able to recuse other justices and preside over cases, if we want powers for it.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I could get behind Kingpoleon's plan if we remove the gubernatorial veto of the Chief Justice. That seems to me to be an unnecessary complication of what would already be a very decentralized process. Clearly, the Regions should have some say in selecting the Justices who will preside over their courts, but Justices whose duties are wholly federal in nature should be selected by federal officials.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If there are no objections within 24 hours, I will begin a principle vote on this question. Said vote will have four options: Plan A (Kingpoleon/Bore's Plan), Plan B (My plan, with the changes noted here), the Status Quo, and Abstain. Like other multi-option principle votes, the vote will be by STV.

[Kingpoleon]

I could get behind Kingpoleon's plan if we remove the gubernatorial veto of the Chief Justice. That seems to me to be an unnecessary complication of what would already be a very decentralized process. Clearly, the Regions should have some say in selecting the Justices who will preside over their courts, but Justices whose duties are wholly federal in nature should be selected by federal officials.

Very well. I hereby remove the gubernatorial veto, as suggested by bore and Truman.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I could get behind Kingpoleon's plan if we remove the gubernatorial veto of the Chief Justice. That seems to me to be an unnecessary complication of what would already be a very decentralized process. Clearly, the Regions should have some say in selecting the Justices who will preside over their courts, but Justices whose duties are wholly federal in nature should be selected by federal officials.

Very well. I hereby remove the gubernatorial veto, as suggested by bore and Truman.

Excellent. I believe we are now proposing essentially the same thing (2 Justices appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, 3 Regional/Associate Justices appointed jointly by the Governors and the President and confirmed by the Regional legislatures), which will make the principle vote much more straight-forward.

[Leinad]

Excellent. I believe we are now proposing essentially the same thing (2 Justices appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, 3 Regional/Associate Justices appointed jointly by the Governors and the President and confirmed by the Regional legislatures), which will make the principle vote much more straight-forward.

I like that, but are the Regional Associate Justices appointed by the Governor with veto power by the President, or "appointed jointly?" I know there aren't many differences, but I'd much prefer the former because 1) it's simpler--I mean, how would they both appoint them? Would one of them stand behind the other in the style of Chris Christie? 2) it means the President would need to publically veto nominee for the Governor's pick to fail, which would only happen if the nominee is widely disliked, thus protecting the Governor's upper-hand in his/her only pick.

Honestly, what I'd like for the Regional Associate Justice is this: the Governor makes the pick, the President can veto it, but the Senate could veto the President's veto in the same way that they can turn down a President's Supreme Court nominations. What do you guys think about that?

[pikachu]

Excellent. I believe we are now proposing essentially the same thing (2 Justices appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, 3 Regional/Associate Justices appointed jointly by the Governors and the President and confirmed by the Regional legislatures), which will make the principle vote much more straight-forward.

I like that, but are the Regional Associate Justices appointed by the Governor with veto power by the President, or "appointed jointly?" I know there aren't many differences, but I'd much prefer the former because 1) it's simpler--I mean, how would they both appoint them? Would one of them stand behind the other in the style of Chris Christie? 2) it means the President would need to publically veto nominee for the Governor's pick to fail, which would only happen if the nominee is widely disliked, thus protecting the Governor's upper-hand in his/her only pick.

Honestly, what I'd like for the Regional Associate Justice is this: the Governor makes the pick, the President can veto it, but the Senate could veto the President's veto in the same way that they can turn down a President's Supreme Court nominations. What do you guys think about that?

Initially I thought this was unnecessarily complex, but I do think that it's important to know what nominees think about federal law and precedents, which likely wouldn't be asked by regional assemblies.

[Leinad]

Pikachu makes a great point. I think the best way to do this is to incorporate the Senate into the proceedings.

How about this:

The Bore-Kingpoleon-Truman-Leinad Plan:

Chief Justice: appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate.
Federal Associate Justice: appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate.
Regional Associate Justices: appointed by the Governor of said region, and confirmed by at least two of the following: the President, the Senate, and the Legislature of said region.

The Senate and Regional Legislature could hold a joint confirmation hearing, and then each of them can separately vote on it. If both agree, the nominee is confirmed/rejected, and if it's split, the President decides.

This way gives the Senate a say, and it requires approval from either the executive or legislature of both the Federal and Regional governments, but none of them could hold the process hostage without the help of another.

The point: there needs to be a way to ensure they're vetted by both the Federal and Regional governments, because their job requires expertise in both. If someone has a better plan to do this and still retain Bore's original idea, I'll gladly move this one aside!

But until then, I'd like for Truman to include this plan in the principle vote.

[Kingpoleon]

Pikachu makes a great point. I think the best way to do this is to incorporate the Senate into the proceedings.

How about this:

The Bore-Kingpoleon-Truman-Leinad Plan:

Chief Justice: appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate.
Federal Associate Justice: appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate.
Regional Associate Justices: appointed by the Governor of said region, and confirmed by at least two of the following: the President, the Senate, and the Legislature of said region.

The Senate and Regional Legislature could hold a joint confirmation hearing, and then each of them can separately vote on it. If both agree, the nominee is confirmed/rejected, and if it's split, the President decides.

This way gives the Senate a say, and it requires approval from either the executive or legislature of both the Federal and Regional governments, but none of them could hold the process hostage without the help of another.

The point: there needs to be a way to ensure they're vetted by both the Federal and Regional governments, because their job requires expertise in both. If someone has a better plan to do this and still retain Bore's original idea, I'll gladly move this one aside!

But until then, I'd like for Truman to include this plan in the principle vote.

I originally wanted the Senate to do this, but it sounded too complex so I never did.

With the PO and his Deputy agreeing to that, may I suggest the Senate can override the Presidential veto? This way, the Senate may hold hearings on it if the President believes it necessary(I. E. their personal judgment as to the regional questionings of the nominee). That way, it's not always so complex.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seeing no objection, we will now move ahead with the principle vote on the structure of the Supreme Court. In light of recent events, the options on the ballot have changes slightly, so make sure to read the ballot COMPLETELY before casting your vote. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via PM or in this thread: I'd much rather everyone was doubly cautious than have to re-do the vote because some people were confused.

In the interests of making things as clear as possible, I have taken the liberty of standardizing the terminology in each of the three reform proposals. For example, my plan refers to the Regionally-appointed Justices as "Associate Justices," Leinad's newest proposal calls them "Regional Associate Justices," and Kingpoleon's original proposal calls them "Regional Justices": the following ballot uses the term "Associate Justices" on all three plans. This terminology is not fixed, so if we want to debate the titles of the different judges, we can do so at a later date.

Finally, I'd like to thank everyone - and especially Kingpoleon - for being so active and engaged these last few days. I hope we can sustain this kind of enthusiasm as we complete work on the Judicial branch and move towards wrapping up this Constitution.

(Voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.)

PRINCIPLE VOTE on the STRUCTURE of the SUPREME COURT

Carefully read each of the following three Plans; then rank the Plans in order of preference on the ballot provided below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BALLOT

Question: Which of the following options do you prefer?

[   ] Plan "A"
[   ] Plan "B"
[   ] Plan "C"
[   ] Status Quo
[   ] Abstain