Judicial Term Limits Amendment [Failed]

[minionofmidas]

With a heavy heart, and while still not quite if it's the right vote, I take the advice of my party leader and the chief justice, both of whom I respect greatly, and vote

Aye.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You should notice that I've not said why I'm voting against the amendment. That will become clear soon enough and it, probably, isn't for the same reason as some other nay votes.

There are two reasons for my vote:

1. I don't see the point in making an unreasonable and dangerous constitutional change more likely to get through the Senate and more likely to be approved by the public.

2. It's clearly unfair that newer Justices should have to face this sort of thing while older ones don't.

[PBrunsel]

I vote nay. If we are seriously going to try this idea, we better apply it to the current batch of judges, if for no ther reason, to escape a likely lawsuit about "double standards" for judges.

[Sam Spade]

With 4 votes in favor, 4 votes against, 1 not voting, and 1 seat vacant, it is up to the VP to decide the outcome of this amendment.

[Јas]

It would appear that an Aye vote would not increase the actual support of the proposal. In which case, I will stick with the original wording for now.

Nay

[Ebowed]

I motion for cloture.

[Sam Spade]

We are now voting on a "motion for cloture".

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Nay, simply b/c I believe a better plan to deal with current justices should and can be put forward (and for me that won't be until Friday at the earliest.

[Hatman 🍁]

aye

[Ebowed]

Aye

[Brandon H]

Unless I missed something, other than the name of the Amendment, nothing has changed and the Amendment itself is still in its original form.

Aye on cloture.

[minionofmidas]

Nay.

If cloture fails, I'm introducing the following amendment, to replace the current version:

Section 1: Members of the Supreme Court shall serve terms of 12 months. Every 12 months, each member of the Supreme Court of Atlasia shall undergo an annual performance evaluation in front of the Senate of Atlasia.  If a 2/3rd majority of the Senate finds a Justice to be inadequate, the President must replace the Justice.  If less than 2/3rd of the Senate finds a Justice to be inadequate, the Justice shall continue to serve. Justices shall continue to serve until a successor has been confirmed.

Section 2: Currently serving members of the court shall undergo their first annual performance evaluation on the anniversary of their confirmation.
Section 2 means that TexasGurl, who has served for just over a year, won't come up for another 11 months. What "inadequate" is is up to the Senate.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I would like to see that 2/3 majority requirement worked in as well, as I previously stated.

Nay on cloture.

[King]

I hope the Senators who have voted in favor of cloture change their votes so Lewis' amendment can be considered.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

nay

[Sam Spade]

With 3 votes in favor and 4 votes against, the motion for cloture has failed and this bill will return to debate on the Senate floor.

I'm going to let Lewis' amendment have some more debate time before a vote.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

With 3 votes in favor and 4 votes against, the motion for cloture has failed and this bill will return to debate on the Senate floor.

I'm going to let Lewis' amendment have some more debate time before a vote.

In that case, I'll speak in favor of it.

I think most people recognize the need to have some manner of mechanism (recall?) to remove poorly performing judges.  And I think most people recognize the need to have judges insulated against political swings, so that they're free to make unpopular—but judicially sound—decisions.

I feel that Lewis' amendment is the best way to serve both these needs.

• It keeps the only once-per-year judicial review period, so judges will be relatively immune to the type of immediate public opinion swings and temporary outrage that oft sink political careers.
• It insulates judges against basic partisan opposition: Seven of ten votes are required to bounce a judge from office (or seven of nine, when a vacancy has occured).  A strong multi-partisan consenus is required to remove a judge of office.
• And, of course, it gives the Senate/President the ability to actually do something about bad judges.

For these reasons, I urge support for the bill.

[Sam Spade]

I support Lewis's amendment, though if passed, there's a couple of language things I would like to change - 1) Defining the two-thirds majority in similar language as veto overrides/Constitutional amendments, so 7 votes are needed always; 2) Giving the Senate the power to define the scope of the "performance evaulation" by legislation.

I may think of something else, but otherwise I think it's good.

[minionofmidas]

I support Lewis's amendment, though if passed, there's a couple of language things I would like to change - 1) Defining the two-thirds majority in similar language as veto overrides/Constitutional amendments, so 7 votes are needed always; 2) Giving the Senate the power to define the scope of the "performance evaulation" by legislation.

I may think of something else, but otherwise I think it's good.

Not a prob with either. Basically I just took King's text and removed the complicated "if between a half and two thirds" part.

[Brandon H]

I still favor giving the President the option of nominating someone new, but I doubt this in its current form will gain the 2/3 votes needed  and the amendment is an improvement over the lifetime appointment system that we have now.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I still favor giving the President the option of nominating someone new, but I doubt this in its current form will gain the 2/3 votes needed  and the amendment is an improvement over the lifetime appointment system that we have now.

Well, if the justice can't get to four votes in favor, then the President gets to nominate someone new anyway.

And agreed—a lifetime appointment is a luxury ill-fitting a three-member judicial board.

[Ebowed]

And agreed—a lifetime appointment is a luxury ill-fitting a three-member judicial board.

Not really.  It's hard enough to find people to serve on the Court as it is.  Until a few days ago two of the three Justices had served on the court before, resigned, and been nominated again.  The people willing to do this sort of thing are not numerous.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

And agreed—a lifetime appointment is a luxury ill-fitting a three-member judicial board.

Not really.  It's hard enough to find people to serve on the Court as it is.  Until a few days ago two of the three Justices had served on the court before, resigned, and been nominated again.  The people willing to do this sort of thing are not numerous.

Which should give the Senate plenty of pause before booting a sitting justice.  To me, simply having a small pool of applicants is all but irrelevent so far as having a hire-for-life policy is concerned.

[Sam Spade]

I'd personally love to be on the Court, but no one has ever asked me, and likewise I doubt the present Senate would approve my nomination.

[King]

I was on the court once and it wasn't fun.  Senate is the only fun part of the game right now.

[Sam Spade]

We are now voting on the following amendment:

I'm introducing the following amendment, to replace the current version:

Section 1: Members of the Supreme Court shall serve terms of 12 months. Every 12 months, each member of the Supreme Court of Atlasia shall undergo an annual performance evaluation in front of the Senate of Atlasia.  If a 2/3rd majority of the Senate finds a Justice to be inadequate, the President must replace the Justice.  If less than 2/3rd of the Senate finds a Justice to be inadequate, the Justice shall continue to serve. Justices shall continue to serve until a successor has been confirmed.

Section 2: Currently serving members of the court shall undergo their first annual performance evaluation on the anniversary of their confirmation.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Aye.