The Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) PASSED

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I obviously support #1, but of course this convention is going to end up supporting #2 since it's the biggest handout to "the Regions" and gives them more influence over the new Court than #1...just like they're being given more and more influence over everything at the expense of every other entity.

Good point - not only does Option 2 effectively eliminate the next president's ability to influence the Court to any degree, it would also likely mean that we would have to make do with a severely understaffed court for several weeks at least (as it will likely take some time for the Regions to adopt a Constitution and elect a functioning government).

[Leinad]

if principle votes are going to continuously be thrown out the window time and time again in later votes, then why have them in the first place?

1. This isn't happening that often. How many times have we thrown out previous principle votes? Maybe it's happening occasionally, but not "time and time again."

2. Why should we be bound to our previous decisions if we have new information that leads a majority of us to reconsider?

In this case, the previous principle vote was in the context of Presidential power, not the Judicial Branch. We didn't really give a second thought to the Supreme Court, as it wasn't yet time to. Now that we are discussing things in a different context (a more relevant, complete context), why can't we alter it if the legitimately elected/appointed delegates decide to?

3. Principle votes are a quick way for us to decide things without getting into the weeds of detailed amendments (see: the mess of amendments and counter-amendments that was the secession debate). They were never supposed to handcuff us to the status quo due to what was an afterthought in a vote on Presidential power.


If you're worried about the current justices and the first President in Atlasia: The Next Generation having enormous power over the makeup of the court, I share those concerns. It's my intention to follow up this discussion, should one of the Bore family of plans pass, with one on how we start off the court. I've already floated ideas based on that--I believe they're on the previous page of replies.

That's a lot of words for "I don't understand what constitutes a 'principle vote'". Said principle vote clearly and explicitly outlined who had the power to appoint judges, irrespective of whatever other fetishes regarding Justices were to be added later on.

What?

This is like planning a wedding before consulting with the other spouse, and then saying to them "while I think you have a good idea, this is my original plan, and I'm going to stick with that even though your idea is better!"

Maybe that's a bad analogy, but it should be a no-brainer that we are allowed to reconsider once we actually start thinking about something. Look at the thread, not one person talked about the Supreme Court in that principle vote you're trying to hand-cuff us to! In the context of that principle vote, not a single post was made about the Judicial Branch, and you think it should rigidly dictate the Judicial Branch? That's blatant absurdity of the highest degree!

You're just trying to keep the status quo, and instead of attacking the merits of the plan itself (do you have any substantive problems with it?) you're resorting to tying us to one-line in a principle vote on presidential powers, and now calling your opponents ignorant for not treating principle votes with the same dogmatic attachment that you do.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What on earth are these plans? Just keep the status quo. I think the court is the least of our problems. Besides, picking a nominee is loads of fun, especially when neither side likes your pick

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Should the Justices elect a Chief Justice from one of the two Associate Justices? Or should it be by appointment?

Should be elected amongst the justices.

[Adam Griffin]

What on earth are these plans? Just keep the status quo. I think the court is the least of our problems. Besides, picking a nominee is loads of fun, especially when neither side likes your pick

As usual, I shouldn't have opened my big, fat mouth. This is all my fault.

[Adam Griffin]

Look at the thread, not one person talked about the Supreme Court in that principle vote you're trying to hand-cuff us to! In the context of that principle vote, not a single post was made about the Judicial Branch, and you think it should rigidly dictate the Judicial Branch? That's blatant absurdity of the highest degree!

Either I'm completely misunderstanding what you are saying, or...what?

OFFICIAL BALLOT
Principle Vote on Presidential Powers

The President shall have the power...

4. To appoint the justices of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate
[   ] AYE    [   ] NAY    [   ] Abstain

RESULTS
Principle Vote on Presidential Powers

The President shall have the power...

4. To appoint the justices of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate
PASSED (18 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions)

If you're trying to say "we didn't have a long, drawn-out debate over whether this should be the way it is", well...you could say that about virtually every power given to the Executive branch thus far (as well as plenty of other provisions adopted elsewhere). It wasn't debated in-depth because it was a no-brainer, as clearly evidence by the unanimous support it received.

As far as I'm concerned and if we had an iron fist ruling this convention based on the parameters we have agreed to prior, then the last vote would be ruled null and void because it is inconsistent with a firm principle vote that we have already held. You don't have to straw-man with the "status quo" argument, because it's an irrelevant one: not only was it I who brought up the notion of exploring this kind of stuff in the first place (truly, I am always the trailblazer), but there are (were?) plenty of creative possibilities that don't revolve around taking the power of appointing Supreme Court Justices away from the Executive Branch.

[Leinad]

If you're trying to say "we didn't have a long, drawn-out debate over whether this should be the way it is", well...you could say that about virtually every power given to the Executive branch thus far (as well as plenty of other provisions adopted elsewhere). It wasn't debated in-depth because it was a no-brainer, as clearly evidence by the unanimous support it received.

You're not misunderstanding what I'm saying, I don't think, although I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, in which case we could both be misunderstanding each other in hefty doses.

Yes, it was unanimous and a "no-brainer" because we didn't really think of the options. That line in the principle vote was akin to an object on a shelf or an unpacked box that has gone untouched for years, in that no one really noticed the court question except as a minor detail in a busy room.

My point isn't a complicated one: we shouldn't be 100% bound to a principle vote that none of us gave a second thought to, realizing that we were going to talk about the courts later but not realizing that we might come up with a plan that involved merging the regional justices into the Supreme Court.

I have no "status quo argument," my argument is that you are opposing Bore's idea and it's derivatives not because of substance but because you think we should treat all principle votes as if they came down from Mount Sinai on a stone tablet. You can oppose it, but you've given no reason other than that one line of a principle vote (and my "ignorance"). The truth is that I don't believe in an "iron fist," I believe in deciding what's best for the new Constitution. Sometimes that means changing our minds when we think of new ideas.

Does that clear things up?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

As promised, here is an amendment incorporating the results of the most recent principled vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once this has been adopted, we will proceed with votes on holding over the incumbent Justices and the Chief Justiceship.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

This is why some people are complaining about the efficiency of this process. I think Truman is doing a fine job running things, but we are arguing over something that shouldn't be an issue.

Regional office holders should not be in the business of appointing judges to the Supreme Court. Let the regions do region things and the federal officer holders do federal things.

I like simplicity. Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seeing no objection, the amendment has been adopted.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Delegates have 24 hours to object to Truman's amendment. That said, I highly doubt there will be any controversy surrounding this, as I effectively copied-and-pasted Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (if it ain't broke, don't fix it).

[Adam Griffin]

I have no objections to this.

[Lincoln Republican]

I as well have no objection.

[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]

Seeing no objection, Truman's Amendment has been adopted.


I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Delegates have 24 hours to object to Truman's amendment.

Basically, this amendment allows for the incumbent Supreme Court Justices to be retained once the new Constitution is ratified. This prevents the new president/governors from having undue influence over the judiciary, as Griffin warned against prior to the last vote. Under this particular proposal, the two most senior Justices (Ebowed and TJ) would become the Associate Justices for the West and the North, while the third (Windjammer) would become one of the two federal Justices. This way, the ability to fill the two new seats will be balanced between the national government and the Regions, as there will be one vacant federal seat and one vacant Regional seat.

[Leinad]

When did Ebowed become a Justice? I think you mean Bgwah (Although I could understand the confusion--two members of "other" parties in the Pacific region.)

Also, I object. I think we should (quickly) put this up to a principle vote based on your first two ideas.

I prefer the other plan myself, as it gives regions more control over their judicial officers. The current 3 have already been approved as Federal Supreme Court Justices, so it won't be a problem to mandate they carry on at those roles, while none of them have been approved as justices for their region. They're not merely Supreme Court Justices, remember, they hold both jobs.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

When did Ebowed become a Justice?

Eh, all those G-WA avatars look the same to me.

I prefer the other plan myself, as it gives regions more control over their judicial officers. The current 3 have already been approved as Federal Supreme Court Justices, so it won't be a problem to mandate they carry on at those roles, while none of them have been approved as justices for their region. They're not merely Supreme Court Justices, remember, they hold both jobs.

I get where you're coming from, but I think its important that both the Regions and the next president have some say in shaping the court. This Convention has understandably taken great care to preserve the rights of the Regions, but we shouldn't forget that the national people have rights as well. I would be very concerned were the Convention to remove the next presidents right to fill one of the new seats, especially considering the tendency of the national popular vote to differ from the outcome of individual Regional elections.

[Leinad]

I prefer the other plan myself, as it gives regions more control over their judicial officers. The current 3 have already been approved as Federal Supreme Court Justices, so it won't be a problem to mandate they carry on at those roles, while none of them have been approved as justices for their region. They're not merely Supreme Court Justices, remember, they hold both jobs.

I get where you're coming from, but I think its important that both the Regions and the next president have some say in shaping the court. This Convention has understandably taken great care to preserve the rights of the Regions, but we shouldn't forget that the national people have rights as well. I would be very concerned were the Convention to remove the next presidents right to fill one of the new seats, especially considering the tendency of the national popular vote to differ from the outcome of individual Regional elections.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from as well. To me it's less of a matter of shaping the court, but one of choosing the individual positions themselves. When it comes to the Regional Associate Justices, they should require both the approval of the federal government and the regional one, since they'll need to do both jobs. I don't like the idea of appointing someone with only half of that vetting process done, when these Justices are fully vetted for the Federal-only seats on the bench. It seems we'll have to do it at least once, I'd simply like to do that as little as possible.

[Kingpoleon]

I'd ask that we have the regional assemblies confirm the regional justices the Convention chooses. Personally, I think bore deserves a spot on the Court since he did invent the current plan.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I prefer the other plan myself, as it gives regions more control over their judicial officers. The current 3 have already been approved as Federal Supreme Court Justices, so it won't be a problem to mandate they carry on at those roles, while none of them have been approved as justices for their region. They're not merely Supreme Court Justices, remember, they hold both jobs.

I get where you're coming from, but I think its important that both the Regions and the next president have some say in shaping the court. This Convention has understandably taken great care to preserve the rights of the Regions, but we shouldn't forget that the national people have rights as well. I would be very concerned were the Convention to remove the next presidents right to fill one of the new seats, especially considering the tendency of the national popular vote to differ from the outcome of individual Regional elections.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from as well. To me it's less of a matter of shaping the court, but one of choosing the individual positions themselves. When it comes to the Regional Associate Justices, they should require both the approval of the federal government and the regional one, since they'll need to do both jobs. I don't like the idea of appointing someone with only half of that vetting process done, when these Justices are fully vetted for the Federal-only seats on the bench. It seems we'll have to do it at least once, I'd simply like to do that as little as possible.

There are going to be trade-offs no matter how we cut this. Personally, I feel like balancing influence between the Regions and the central government is the most important consideration. I might feel differently if we had three newbies on the Court, but both Bgwah and TJ have long records in Atlasian politics spanning Regional and federal office - I don't for a moment doubt their competence or their ability to handle these added responsibilities. (Keep in mind, also, that the Regions rarely make use of their CJOs - I don't think there's been a single Regional court case in all my time in Atlasia). I'm fairly confident that, were we to put Bgwah or TJ's nomination to a vote, they would be overwhelmingly approved - for my own part, I can't think of a single logical reason that they would be unable to do this job, unless they themselves simply aren't interested. I'm an ends-focussed thinker by nature, so I therefore found this proposal preferable to one where the new president has no say in shaping the new Court (a tangible concern with tangible results in terms of policy and game mechanics).

I'll put up a principle vote in the next few minutes.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

PRINCIPLE VOTE on RETENTION

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.

Question: In what capacity, if at all, should the incumbent Supreme Court Justices be retained?

[   ] Plan "A"
[   ] Plan "B"
[   ] None of the Above
[   ] Abstain

[/]

[ X ] None of the Above

[tmthforu94]

[ X ] None of the Above

[Adam Griffin]

[1] Plan A
[2] Plan B

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

[1] Plan A
[2] Plan B