HOUSE RESOLUTION: Judiciary Term Limit Amendment (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

Sponsor: 1184AZ
House Designation: HR 1095

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So would be out of the chamber before this came up, AZ?

I was even a day late on tabling the Reboot Act.


Anway, you have 24 hours to advocate for this, lest it I appeal it to a higher power.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

This amendment is meant to reform the judicial branch by attempting to slow down the impact of particularly hackish judges being appointed on the court, as well as to ensure that we keep an active and engaged court. This bill is also meant to be something that would go into effect later on not effecting the current court membership.

[Representative simossad]

I understand the intention of this bill, and I believe that this would be a good idea if we had problems with these specific issues that you address. I don't believe that we have a problem with our court and the way how reliable judges are appointed, but I will support the bill if the house thinks that this is necessary.

[windjammer]

This amendment is meant to reform the judicial branch by attempting to slow down the impact of particularly hackish judges being appointed on the court, as well as to ensure that we keep an active and engaged court. This bill is also meant to be something that would go into effect later on not effecting the current court membership.

There are impeachment proceedings for that. You can get rid of a SC justice for whatever reasons with just 4 senators voting on the affirmative.

[Blair]

To give an actual example of how much respect I have for the current court I'll tell a story... a couple of months ago we had a pressing issue involving a voting law in the South. I contacted Windjammer asking him to get information on the Evergreen v Rpyror case, only to be told very bluntly by him that he couldn't say anything to me as it could soon 'be an issue for the court'.

We have a very good set of justices on the court, and I've always opposed term limits for judges (IIRC I didn't want them when I was in the Northern Committee, and in both US and UK RL politics I've opposed them, because they've often used as a crude political tool.

We have a very precise tool for getting rid of bad justices, which is impeachment. It's a bad idea to change this precise tool into a blunt hammer that would weaken the quality of the court

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This is an example of what I like to call a "Rosecrans Bill" (the historians here will get it): it seeks to correct a problem that doesn't exist and, in doing so, creates a host of errors that cause endless trouble for all. As the president emeritus correctly states, there already exists a process by which inactive and irresponsible jurists may be removed from office; there is, furthermore, no reason to believe that the life term poses a serious inhibition to the court as an institution, or to the federal government at-large. What this bill would do is reduce the (already quite small) pool of potential justices even further. As someone who has had to nominate candidates for the court in the past, I can testify to the difficulty of finding someone both willing and qualified to take the job. The last thing we ought to be doing is barring someone like TJ or Windjammer from judicial office for life because Congress decided to fix an imaginary gap in the line.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Blair and Truman, the new Napoleon and Opebo. The historians here will get the reference.


As my colleagues have pointed tom there are a number of flaws with this proposal. The first among them has been mentioned and that is that we would lose good Justices and struggle to replace them.

However, and I am glad people are so confident in the court now. There was time when this was proposed when the Justices were rather unpopular. I mean one of them was Opebo, nuff said. Anyway, as I stated then, my primary concern with judicial term limits is the threat of unequal justice. That Justices will rule different depending on when their term is in relation to its end and will game the system to curry favor with a region or administration in the hopes of gaining subsequent employment. Some say, this is a game and it is less of a concern. I disagree, the threat of unfairness in the court, which is often ruling on the election laws, risks the disenfranchisement of players who thus will be encouraged to de-register. This being a game that is based largely on voluntary participation, such a situation would be counter to the interests of the game.

Going further, it has long been my philosophical belief that the independent judiciary is essential for the preservation of democracy and that equality before the law under said judiciary is just as paramount. Judicial Term Limits, manages to harm both principles, while at the same time providing an imperfect solution to a presently (but previously existent) problem of activity on the court.

Therefore, I must oppose any attempt to apply term limits to the court.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Blair and Truman, the new Napoleon and Opebo. The historians here will get the reference.

Which am I, the womanizer or the sockmaster?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Blair and Truman, the new Napoleon and Opebo. The historians here will get the reference.

Which am I, the womanizer or the sockmaster?

Well you joined a month before Napoleon was banned. Blair joined the site two months before Opebo was banned.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I motion for a final vote.

[Representative simossad]

I motion for a final vote.

seconded

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A final vote is now open on the Judiciary Term Limit Amendment, Representatives please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY

[Representative simossad]

nay

[Enduro]

Nay

[OneJ]

Nay

[Drew]

Nay

[Heisenberg]

NAY

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This has enough votes to fail, Representatives have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on House Passage of the Judiciary Term Limit Amendment:

Aye (0):
Nay (7): Drew, Enduro, Heisenberg, NC Yankee, OneJ_Peebs, and Simossad
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (2): Potus and Ted


The Amendment has not been adopted.