Judicial Term Limits Amendment [Failed]

[Јas]

Revised Tally on Ebowed's Cloture Motion
Aye: 6 (Moderate [NE]; Lewis; Earl; Ebowed; Al; Rob)
Nay: 2 (Sam; Brandon)
Yet to Vote: 2 (afleitch; Moderate [D2])

7 Aye votes are required to pass the motion of cloture.

Actually, if I resign my seat in the Northeast and assume my seat in District 2 in 55 minutes, can I vote for cloture again on behalf of District 2 and have my vote count twice?

Your vote as the Northeastern Senator stands wherever it has been cast so far, however it is subject to change should a new Northeastern Senator appear.
You are now the District 2 Senator and all votes cast from now will count as such.
It seems therefore that there will be a brief overlap wherein those votes currently open within which you may be eligible to cast a second vote.

[Sam Spade]

I've been playing around for a while here (as I occasionally will do).  I change my vote to Aye to move this thing to final passage.

[Јas]

The cloture motion passing, we now come to a final vote on the following constitutional amendment:

Judicial Term Amendment

Article III, Section 1, Clauses 6 and 7 of the Atlasian Constitution shall be created to read as follows:

6. 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.

7. 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 accordingly.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Aye.

[minionofmidas]

Aye

[Brandon H]

Aye

[Ebowed]

Nay

[Hatman 🍁]

abstain

[Rob]

Nay.

[Јas]

Tally on Final Vote
Aye: 3 (Moderate; Lewis; brandon)
Nay: 2 (Ebowed; Rob)
Abstain: 1 (Earl)
Vacant: 1 (Northeast)
Yet to Vote: 3 (afleitch; Al; Sam)

With 9 Senators, 6 Aye cotes are required to send this amendment for consideration to the regions.
Any further Nay votes or abstentions would cause this amendment to fail on the Senate floor.

[afleitch]

Tally on Final Vote
Aye: 3 (Moderate; Lewis; brandon)
Nay: 2 (Ebowed; Rob)
Abstain: 1 (Earl)
Vacant: 1 (Northeast)
Yet to Vote: 3 (afleitch; Al; Sam)

With 9 Senators, 6 Aye cotes are required to send this amendment for consideration to the regions.
Any further Nay votes or abstentions would cause this amendment to fail on the Senate floor.

I had believed I couldn't formally enter office until Monday. If not then my mistake; i'll read though the amendment and cast a vote.

EDIT: Should have said Friday, which of course it now is...

[afleitch]

Nay.

[Јas]

Tally on Final Vote
Aye: 3 (Moderate; Lewis; Brandon)
Nay: 3 (Ebowed; Rob; afleitch)
Abstain: 1 (Earl)
Vacant: 1 (Northeast)
Yet to Vote: 2 (Al; Sam)

With 3 Nays and 1 declared abstention, the amendment is failing.
Senators have 24 hours within which they may change their votes.

[Verily]

I urge all Senators voting Nay or Abstaining to reconsider their decision.

[Ebowed]

I urge all Senators voting Nay or Abstaining to reconsider their decision.

The idea of judicial term limits or mandated renominations will, at its core, politicize the Supreme Court, regardless of what safeguards are erected to attempt to combat the problem.

[Sam Spade]

Aye.

[Verily]

I urge all Senators voting Nay or Abstaining to reconsider their decision.

The idea of judicial term limits or mandated renominations will, at its core, politicize the Supreme Court, regardless of what safeguards are erected to attempt to combat the problem.

I would ask you to provide significant evidence for this conclusion. Bullmoose was just confirmed to the Court with no opposition at all, and he will undoubtedly be a good justice. Many people who disagree with some of his politics, yourself included, voted to confirm him. Why would reconfirmation work any differently with capable justices?

[opebo]

I urge all Senators voting Nay or Abstaining to reconsider their decision.

The idea of judicial term limits or mandated renominations will, at its core, politicize the Supreme Court, regardless of what safeguards are erected to attempt to combat the problem.

I would ask you to provide significant evidence for this conclusion. Bullmoose was just confirmed to the Court with no opposition at all, and he will undoubtedly be a good justice. Many people who disagree with some of his politics, yourself included, voted to confirm him. Why would reconfirmation work any differently with capable justices?

'Capable'??  That is just another way of saying politically popular, verly.

[Verily]

I will go further and make the argument that permanent appointments more greatly politicize the court. Presidents are encouraged to nominate candidates as extreme towards their own ideology as can be approved by the Senate in order to ensure that their own views are represented on the court for years to come. Reconfirmation would discourage such practices because it would be highly unlikely that extremists would be reconfirmed, yet moderate, rational justices who rule on reason rather than ideological purity would be easily reapproved.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I should note that an abstention is the same as an Aye vote. Mainly because of a very silly court ruling made by a court full of people who really should have known better than to intervene in the internal business of the Senate.

Anyway, I've yet to decide how to vote. My problem is this; while I think that the court needs its wings clipped (not so much a comment on the current court, as on past (and perhaps future?) ones. You know, the ones full of far-right hacks who abused their positions rather more than was entirely decent...), I worry about further politicising what is already a highly politicised institution.

[Verily]

I should note that an abstention is the same as an Aye vote. Mainly because of a very silly court ruling made by a court full of people who really should have known better than to intervene in the internal business of the Senate.

Anyway, I've yet to decide how to vote. My problem is this; while I think that the court needs its wings clipped (not so much a comment on the current court, as on past (and perhaps future?) ones. You know, the ones full of far-right hacks who abused their positions rather more than was entirely decent...), I worry about further politicising what is already a highly politicised institution.

As I pointed out, reappointment encourages consensus candidates rather than hacks from either the far left or far right.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not convinced that a centrist hack is any good either.

[afleitch]

I hope in the new session. with new bills on the floor, we will spend more time on bills that matter rather than bills that simply change how a small part of the wider governance of Atlasia operates. Besides; if it ain't broke...

[Verily]

Not convinced that a centrist hack is any good either.

I'm not sure what you mean. I would expect both the left and the right to oppose a hack from the center. This is about consensus candidates; Bullmoose is a good example.

[opebo]

...moderate, rational justices who rule on reason rather than ideological purity would be easily reapproved.

What are you prattling onabout verily? YOU see your ideological preferences as 'reasonable', and 'rational'.  Everyone does.  Your expectations of the court are quite simply fantasy.

Anyway Bullmoose is the classic example of someone who, while no more 'rational', 'reasonable', or 'impartial', and just as political as the rest of us, manages to pose as such simply because the ideology he imposes is more or less the status quo.  He doesn't rock the boat.  But to suggest that supporting the existing power-relationships isn't 'political' is just silly.