Confirmation Hearing: TexasGurl (Associate Justice)

[Q]

I call this hearing to order.

[Јas]

I would like to congratulate TexasGurl on her nomination. I have no questions for the nominee and look forward to seeing her return to the court.

[MasterJedi]

No way will she get my vote.

[Virginian87]

No way will she get my vote.

Likewise.  I will not support any judicial candidate who will push a radical leftist agenda.  She represents a segment of the population that is way out of line with the majority of Atlasians.  She would be the very definition of an "activist judge".

[adam]

As you can see TexasGurl, your nomination hasn't been met by many warm hearts, I am assuming that this is the result of your previous work within the Atlasian government. So I'd like to ask;

If voted in, would you push a "radical leftist agenda" or would you, in the name of fairness,  reach across the border and govern in a bi-ideological manner?

[Ebowed]

I am dismayed to see what this confirmation hearing has become.  In the interests of defending my nominee, I should mention that TexasGurl has served on the Court before (nominated by former President PBrunsel).  I recommend reading the following case where TexasGurl not only provided a dissent opinion, but got along with her fellow Justices despite their differences in ideology.  Notice, also, that her dissent opinion was not "I oppose this ruling because I wish to push a radical leftist agenda"; she provided her own constitutional basis for why she did not rule with the other two Justices.

I don't expect TexasGurl to govern in a "bi-ideological" manner for several reasons.  The first is that we don't have two ideologies in Atlasia; we have roughly four.  Second, the Court is not a place where someone governs, and I don't think justices should be held to any special standard where they have to please the public with each of their decisions.  Their jobs as justices is to interpret the constitution, not to work in a cooperative and bipartisan manner.

[adam]

I don't expect TexasGurl to govern in a "bi-ideological" manner for several reasons.  The first is that we don't have two ideologies in Atlasia; we have roughly four. 

While that's cute Mr. President, I feel as though the point is more valid than any descrepencies in the language by which it was made. I'll elaborate in the next paragraph.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would argue the complete opposite Mr. President. Court Justices, like senators and governors, are public servants. Their job, while is to interpret the consititution, is to also do so in the best intrest of the people. I worry that someone with a history of abrasiveness will work against the senate, and thus work against the process of helping the Atlasian public. The court should have one body's agenda in mind, the public's. I worry that your nominee lacks this, what is in my mind, essential quality.

I am a fair man, and thus I will not strike a candidate down based on their matrix numbers. However, I think that I make a valid point and would really like to be convinced otherwise by the nominee.

[Ebowed]

That view is abhorrent.  Working in the public interest is what has given us many of the United States Supreme Court's recent decisions.  If the Court makes an unsound decision they can just say that they were working in the public interest.  For example, Sandra Day O'Connor said that affirmative action may become unconstitutional after, say, fifty years once it has run out its purpose.  Does that sound logical or fair to you?  There is a reason we try not to allow that here.  We need at least one branch of the government that is not responsible to the public, and the judicial branch is it.

[Democratic Hawk]

This nominee will not receive my support but I stress not because of any ideological misgivings, I may have about her

I had only served in the Senate a short while with the Associate Justice-designate, who was the then District 1 Senator,  and I've got to admit that her conduct during that time left much to be desired. Didn't exactly behave with decorum when things didn't go her own way; thus, not the type of person we need on the Supreme Court

For this reason, I have serious misgivings with regards to her suitability to be an Associative Justice of the Supreme Court. It doesn't matter that she once served in this capacity, perhaps she conducted herself more gracefully back then, I don't know

'Hawk'

[Ebowed]

It doesn't matter that she once served in this capacity, perhaps she conducted herself more gracefully back then, I don't know

She did.

Senator and Associate Justice are two entirely different jobs; given that she's served in the latter already, why not vote based on her performance there?

[MasterJedi]

It doesn't matter that she once served in this capacity, perhaps she conducted herself more gracefully back then, I don't know

She did.

You are correct, she did. But she doesn't anymore, she's changed a lot since back then when she recieved my vote twice for the Senate.

[The Dowager Mod]

As you can see TexasGurl, your nomination hasn't been met by many warm hearts, I am assuming that this is the result of your previous work within the Atlasian government. So I'd like to ask;

If voted in, would you push a "radical leftist agenda" or would you, in the name of fairness,  reach across the border and govern in a bi-ideological manner?

Those who do not have a personal problem with me know i have worked with differing ideologies many times.

[MasterJedi]

As you can see TexasGurl, your nomination hasn't been met by many warm hearts, I am assuming that this is the result of your previous work within the Atlasian government. So I'd like to ask;

If voted in, would you push a "radical leftist agenda" or would you, in the name of fairness,  reach across the border and govern in a bi-ideological manner?

Those who do not have a personal problem with me know i have worked with differing ideologies many times.

The first time you were in the Senate, not after that though.

[The Dowager Mod]

No way will she get my vote.

Likewise.  I will not support any judicial candidate who will push a radical leftist agenda.  She represents a segment of the population that is way out of line with the majority of Atlasians.  She would be the very definition of an "activist judge".

HAHA now that is funny, even for you.
Please show us where i have ever pushed any agendas.

[Hatman 🍁]

I think Ebowed made a good call by appointing both texasgurl and Emsworth. Two people from opposite ends of the spectrum that will balance things out nicely. This balance is necessary, and I think I can only support someone like Emsworth if Texasgurl is on the court to balance things out.

[The Dowager Mod]

As you can see TexasGurl, your nomination hasn't been met by many warm hearts, I am assuming that this is the result of your previous work within the Atlasian government. So I'd like to ask;

If voted in, would you push a "radical leftist agenda" or would you, in the name of fairness,  reach across the border and govern in a bi-ideological manner?

Those who do not have a personal problem with me know i have worked with differing ideologies many times.

The first time you were in the Senate, not after that though.

You call anyone who does not agree with you a "horrible" person i expect nothing different here.

[adam]

That view is abhorrent.  Working in the public interest is what has given us many of the United States Supreme Court's recent decisions.  If the Court makes an unsound decision they can just say that they were working in the public interest.  For example, Sandra Day O'Connor said that affirmative action may become unconstitutional after, say, fifty years once it has run out its purpose.  Does that sound logical or fair to you?  There is a reason we try not to allow that here.  We need at least one branch of the government that is not responsible to the public, and the judicial branch is it.

As far as the O'Connor incident is concerned, a vast majority of people have been claiming that AA has run it's course and is rather unconstitutional since the mid to late 80s. So I would say that her  assumption was in the intrest of the people. I'll provide you with another example, one that you may have been adament about as a real life Democrat. The 2000 election ruling. Would you be willing to concede that they did not have a responsibility to uphold the will of the people? I of course supported the decision for numerous other reasons, but tell those who believe Gore won Florida that SCOTUS did not have a responsibility to uphold public will. Now you Mr. President, as the first president in the history of Atlasia to be re-elected...I must say that I am disappointed in your assumption that any form of government should be free from public will. Had it not been for the strong public will, I'd probably be having this conversation with Andrew Berger.

Do you know what you get when you have a bench of people who can very much so alter the government and political landscape without one peice of input fromt he general public? An oligarchy. A form of government that has been proven to fail, and proven to oppress.

All of that aside, I think we are leaving the topic of TexasGurl. I consider her a friend, and she's probably wanting to put a foot upside my ass right about now...but I truly have concerns about her ability to do this job based on what I have read from her in the past. I am still undecided, and I appreciate her response.

[Ebowed]

Affirmative action did not become "rather unconstitutional."  The constitutionality of something does not change based on shifting social norms.  The only thing that can change the constitutionality of something is a constitutional amendment.

I don't see what Bush v. Gore has to do with this, as the ruling had nothing to do with public opinion, but rather whether or not the recounts should have kept going.

I didn't say that any form of government should be free from public will!  I said one branch of government does not answer to the public, and that is the judicial branch.  There is a reason that judges do not win elections, unlike presidents or senators.

[adam]

Affirmative action did not become "rather unconstitutional."  The constitutionality of something does not change based on shifting social norms.  The only thing that can change the constitutionality of something is a constitutional amendment.

The constitutionality of something changes with the evolution of man's intelligence. Just as slavery went from a business to an unconstitutional practice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The public opinion (at the time) were strongly behind recounting the votes. Thus, it was also an issue public will.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be free from answering to the public is to be free from public will.

Ebowed, we could go back and forth like this for days, but we would still be trailing off course. We are here to discuss TexasGurl, not the priorities of the generic SC Justice.

[Ebowed]

Actually, slavery became unconstitutional because the United States passed a constitutional amendment.  It had nothing to do with the evolution of man's intelligence. :-P

If the public is strongly in favor or strongly against something, that has no bearing over whether something is constitutional or not.  If the meaning of the constitution can simply change based on public opinion, that is known as tyranny of the majority.  Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, etc. mean absolutely nothing if the court can rule against them under pressure from "the public."

[© tweed]

Just as slavery went from a business to an unconstitutional practice.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

[WMS]

No way will she get my vote.

Likewise.  I will not support any judicial candidate who will push a radical leftist agenda.  She represents a segment of the population that is way out of line with the majority of Atlasians.  She would be the very definition of an "activist judge".

Get your defibrillators out, folks.

But Virginian, I could certainly raise the same concerns about Emsworth and his pushing a radical libertarian agenda. Given that, quite frankly, I still disagree with Bono vs. Atlasia and its radical libertarianism - the case Ebowed linked to - on an ideological basis I am more concerned with Emsworth's leanings than Texasgurl's. But she showed she could act professionally on the bench.

Yes, she's feisty and opinionated - we've certainly had our disagreements - but that isn't a reason to vote against her.

[jokerman]

Emsworth has a strong legal mind, more than enough to compensate any ideological misgivings.  It's with Texasgurl's very much "unjudicial" terperament that my problems lie.  Her extreme hostility to people of differing ideologies or views from her is exactly the opposite of the dispassionate mind we need from a court justice.  All of our great justices have had this dispassionate, calm, fair-minded temperament.

[jerusalemcar5]

Texasgurl has my support, despite the fact that she can be overly aggressive at some times.

[Colin]

I must say that I agree with the President that the court must operate outside of public interest in order to be interpreters of the law. The court must only represent the law and is only beholden to the law. That is why court justices aren't elected in order to elevate them above the common fray of public interests and partisan politics. The law is the law. It does not change over time unless it is changed by those in power. Legal opinion should not be shaped by the whims of the masses or the sentiments of political ideology.

Atlasia has a great history of the Supreme Court handing down opinions that were not in line with public opinion. From Fritz v. Ernest to Bono v. Atlasia to the recent rulings of the court it has often been the idea of the court to base it's findings in the laws of Atlasia. The members of this court have often gone against the public opinion to give decisions based upon the Constitution and the statues of this great land. Senator Vlad if we let the Supreme Court be ruled by the interests and opinions of all of Atlasia we will lose the actual mission of the court. The court will lose, and Atlasia will lose, a body that truely protects the rights and privaleges of Atlasians through the strict interpretation of the laws and statues of this nation and will gain a court of public opinion where the collective will of Atlasia triumphs over the respect of the law.