SC: Associate Supreme Court Justice Confirmation for North Carolina Yankee

[Anna Komnene]

Pursuant to The South Constitution, Article V, Section 2, this body will now hold a confirmation hearing for North Carolina Yankee, who has been nominated by Governor PiT to fill the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

I hereby invite the nominee to make an opening statement, after which time a period of questions shall commence.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First off, I would thank Governor (almost said Emperor here) PiT for his appointment and faith in me. I would also like to thank all of you for giving me a fair hearing.

Since most of the chamber is new, I will give a brief summary of my past experience. I represented the Dirty South/Imperial Dominion of the South/South for 17 consecutive terms in the Senate, followed by 3 as At-Large Senator. For many years I was able to administer independently the Senate as PPT, while also being an effective advocate and representative for the South as Senator and also being an effective ROC Party Chairman for first the RPP and then the Feds. In fact there were many cases where many liberals and far leftists trusted my independence over other liberals and leftists and would vote to reelect me as PPT, in spite of being a Party Chair on the right.

Over the course of that time, protecting regional rights was my primary calling card, but beginning in 2013 I became acutely interested in the welfare of the Supreme Court. Years prior I created a thread to keep, the case threads clear of chatter (now if only people would use it ).  However, 2013 brought a renewed interest. I brought a case before the court and won unanimously, but during that case, there was a significant problem with inactive Justices. I successfully pushed for activity requirements, working with by then former President Napoleon to pass an Amendment to that effect. However, almost immediately a push was begun for Judicial Term Limits, one which I opposed for fear of the impact it would have the independence of the court.

In my view, one of the most important institutions in a democracy is a functioning judiciary before which all are equally judged according to the law. The independence of the court is substantially a factor in upholding that critical responsibility.

That being said, a primary responsibility for this post will be to handle legal matters at a regional level. As many will note, Governor Spiral had appointed me as Judicial Overlord at the tail end of his administration and I was confirmed by a unanimous vote of the people of the region for that post, which is still reflected in my rather poorly updated signature. I sought this post because I was desiring a change of pace after eight years of legislative service, and always at the Federal Level. It was my first non-Federal post and my first non-legislative one and it is an area that, as stated above I have a passionate interest. I am eager to reprise a similar service in the new South, as well as take on the added responsibilities this post has under the Fourth Constitution (namely, serving on the Supreme Court in Nyman).

I would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have, and thanks again for your time.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I have but one question, if the case arose for Roe V Wade to be overturned, would you vote to overturn it or to leave it intact after substantial debate? Thank you for your time Mr. North Carolina Yankee.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have but one question, if the case arose for Roe V Wade to be overturned, would you vote to overturn it or to leave it intact after substantial debate? Thank you for your time Mr. North Carolina Yankee.

I am pro-life. However, my guiding principle will be what the constitution says on the matter. Is it Federal, is it regional? Is it legal, is it illegal? For instance there was an Atlasian version of that case under the previous constitution, that left the issue primarily to the regions, a ruling that was unanimous (TJ, Oakvale and bgwah, the latter two of whom are pretty liberal on such matters). However this constitution is different and therefore whether or not a similar ruling is appropriate, is a question that the court will likely have to decide at some point.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do you believe there are certain rights that should be protected even if it means overturning or going against the will of a popular majority?  Why or why not?

I am firm believer in a constitutional Republic. One of the most important features as I said before is equality before the law, in any successful democracy. Such unrestrained Democracies that tend to let loose the tyranny of the majority as you seem to be describing, usually end up as dictatorships or collapsing in some other fashion. The success of a constitutional Republic is dependent on restraining democratic excesses from interfering with and/or voting out of existence the constitutional rights of minorities. Typically, when the court has failed to do this, it has either been the result of 1) the Judiciary's independence being infringed (Dred Scott is a prime example), or 2) The Court being unilaterally ignored (Cherokee Nation/Trail of Tears).


I mentioned for instance 2013 above. One of the things that spurred my interest in the court was reading substantially both found documents such as the Federalist Papers and also that of period political philosophers, but the most informing one I found was Edmund Burke. At the time in France there wasn't much restraint at all and the result was clear. Years of turmoil and dictatorship. That is not to say that the US or Britain at the time was some paradise, but if there is to be found a preferable state of affairs, it is one that seeks to balance popular will against institutional restraints to ensure both the best a democratic society can offer while avoiding the dangers and turmoil an excess of democracy will produce. The Judiciary is one of those institutions.

[Santander]

Mr. Yankee, thank you for your time and your exceptional service to this nation. Here are my first few questions:

1. What is your view on the role of federalism in our constitutional system? How have your views affected your decisions in the Senate and judiciary?

2. Should Atlasia's standing in the world ever inform a judicial decision? Please explain why or why not.

3. Do you believe that the government ever has a right to declare a life worthy of destruction? What are your views on this matter in the context of capital punishment, assisted suicide, and terrorism? Does a "right to die" exist, and is it within the government's authority to define conditions under which such a right can be legally exercised?

4. What is your view on the legal handing of foreign terrorism suspects? Are they enemy combatants in our war on terrorism, or are they criminals? If they are enemy combatants, do we have an obligation to give them a military tribunal within a certain period of time? Would your answer change if national security was threatened?

Thank you for your answers.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. Yankee, thank you for your time and your exceptional service to this nation. Here are my first few questions:

1. What is your view on the role of federalism in our constitutional system? How have your views affected your decisions in the Senate and judiciary?

I would say "federalism" is a primary guiding philosophy. I have long tried to promote and improve the relevance and functionality of the regional level of gov't as well as oppose attempts to centralize authority at the federal level and basically starve the regions of importance, which for a long time was a view that held substantial sway in Atlasia, though it has once again declined as it has done at point as well. At the same time, I am fully supportive of preserving certain powers at the federal level. An example of this would be my consistent support for a a balance legislature, either with a bicameral system with one house representing the regions and the others the people at large, or a unicameral legislature evenly split between two blocks like previously.

2. Should Atlasia's standing in the world ever inform a judicial decision? Please explain why or why not.

 

If you mean whether or not the constitution should take a back seat to international approval, I would probably lean no. Equality before the law and constitutionalism should not be compromised for the sake of such. If there are laws or provisions that are internationally unpopular, then such is a matter for the other branches to way when it comes to changing those laws or passing amendments, but the court should interpret and apply those laws in accordance with the constitution on an equal basis, irregardless of opinion either internal or external.

3. Do you believe that the government ever has a right to declare a life worthy of destruction? What are your views on this matter in the context of capital punishment, assisted suicide, and terrorism? Does a "right to die" exist, and is it within the government's authority to define conditions under which such a right can be legally exercised?

The gov't has the right and responsibility to protect its people, within the laws and within the constitution. That means to the extent allowed by both, it can for instance wage war and therefore kill people as a unfortunate reality. There is presently an amendment being passed on capital punishment, which if ratified would dictate constitutional law on the matter of the death penalty. As for assisted suicide, I have deep concerns because you have others determining the fate of someone who may or may not be capable of making the decision for themselves depending on the case. My first inclination is such would be up to the regions to legislate on, but then again depending on the regional constitution that answer could very as well as various clauses in the Federal constitution, which might provide a contrary answer as well.

4. What is your view on the legal handing of foreign terrorism suspects? Are they enemy combatants in our war on terrorism, or are they criminals? If they are enemy combatants, do we have an obligation to give them a military tribunal within a certain period of time? Would your answer change if national security was threatened?

Naturally, the gov't has a right to defend the country and its people, within reasonable limits set by the constitution and law. I think enemy combatants should be given a timely tribunal, though admittedly complications might arise that cause reasonable justification for delay, a tribunal should take place and as soon as practical. As for classification as criminals, I would say Atlasians supporting ISIL for example, who undertake or conspire to undertake domestic terrorism should be treated as criminals though, but I can see arguments for clear and present danger motivating the normal due process being delayed until such situation is now longer present.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

For the record, I have no further questions for Mr. North Carolina Yankee.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Aye

[Terry the Fat Shark]

AYE

[Santander]

Aye

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I would like to thank the Legislators for their confidence in Mr. Yankee to serve on the Supreme Court.

[Anna Komnene]

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 4, and the NAYs are 0, with 1 not voting.  The AYEs have it, and North Carolina Yankee is confirmed.  I will now submit this to the President of Atlasia for his decision.