Judicial Term Limits Amendment [Failed]
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:00:15 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Judicial Term Limits Amendment [Failed]
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Author Topic: Judicial Term Limits Amendment [Failed]  (Read 12580 times)
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: September 08, 2007, 03:12:36 PM »
« edited: September 08, 2007, 04:00:39 PM by Verily »

...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.

Bullmoose's views are the status quo!? And there you show your complete ignorance.

Nor would I be inclined to say that the most reasonable justices would be those closest to my views (though you seem to find yourself, and perhaps TexasGurl, the only possible appropriate justices).
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: September 08, 2007, 03:26:05 PM »

...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.

Perhapas you can only see things through your own personal ideological grudge-based glasses, but for a significant portion of voters, especially as it relates to affairs inside of Atlasia, we put far more weight on activity and ability to foster debate.

My first vote was for EarlAW over Rockefeller Republican, despite the fact that RR and I are now in the same party and much more ideological compatible: the most important thing to me was that I felt that EarlAW would make a better, more active Senator.

I don't see why you have so little faith in the Senate, specifically when we're trying to set the bar for bouncing a justice at the 7 vote "veto-proof" level.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: September 08, 2007, 04:49:16 PM »

I should note that an abstention is the same as an Aye vote.

Really?  They've been counted as Nays even since that silly court battle
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: September 08, 2007, 05:06:46 PM »

I should note that an abstention is the same as an Aye vote.

Really?  They've been counted as Nays even since that silly court battle

Can someone give me the name or a link to the case in question?
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: September 08, 2007, 05:11:48 PM »

cheesewhiz vs senate of atlasia IIRC.  unless Al was talking about something else
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: September 08, 2007, 05:22:56 PM »

cheesewhiz vs senate of atlasia IIRC.  unless Al was talking about something else

Thanks.
My reading of that judgment would be that an abstention would effectively count as a Nay vote on Constitutional Amendments, which would seem to be implicit from Part III of the opinion, where it is stated:
"It is undisputed that at the time of declared passage of The Amendment that there were ten Senators in office and that only six voted for its passage. Under our reading of Article VII, seven of the ten Senators are required to pass the Amendment."
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,978
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: September 08, 2007, 05:40:40 PM »

...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.

Perhapas you can only see things through your own personal ideological grudge-based glasses, but for a significant portion of voters, especially as it relates to affairs inside of Atlasia, we put far more weight on activity and ability to foster debate.

My first vote was for EarlAW over Rockefeller Republican, despite the fact that RR and I are now in the same party and much more ideological compatible: the most important thing to me was that I felt that EarlAW would make a better, more active Senator.


I thought you voted for me because I answered your questionnaire Wink
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,973
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: September 08, 2007, 06:48:45 PM »

...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.

Bullmoose's views are the status quo!? And there you show your complete ignorance.

Nor would I be inclined to say that the most reasonable justices would be those closest to my views (though you seem to find yourself, and perhaps TexasGurl, the only possible appropriate justices).
Leave me out of it, Opebo doesn't approve of me either. :/
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 on: September 08, 2007, 07:21:16 PM »

...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.

Perhapas you can only see things through your own personal ideological grudge-based glasses, but for a significant portion of voters, especially as it relates to affairs inside of Atlasia, we put far more weight on activity and ability to foster debate.

My first vote was for EarlAW over Rockefeller Republican, despite the fact that RR and I are now in the same party and much more ideological compatible: the most important thing to me was that I felt that EarlAW would make a better, more active Senator.


I thought you voted for me because I answered your questionnaire Wink

Well, yes, that's how I determined you were going to be a more active Senator.  I mean, if the kid can't send back a basic questionnaire, how the heck is he gonna stand up to prinicipled debate with the likes of Senator Rob?!
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: September 08, 2007, 10:55:46 PM »

I don't really care about what the justices believe, "hackish or not", as long as they look at each case with an open mind to each side.  That to me is defined as "judicial temperament", and that is something that should be required of every justice before and after confirmation.

Out of all the people here, I suspect Al and I disagree on the nature of judges more than anyone else.  I don't know where your opinions have formed, Al, but mine have personally formed from watching judges in action and working with them personally.  However, I possibly suspect we may in fact agree on the above-stated aspect of adjudging cases, if nothing else. 

At present, there is one justice on the Supreme Court that I feel lacks the judicial temperament to be on there, indeed he may have been the only justice to ever lack the judicial temperament to be on there.  I have come very close to taking action against this in other ways, but I voted for the present proposal because it represents a fairer, less draconian way of handling the matter.  I would hope others would too.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: September 09, 2007, 06:51:07 AM »

Result on Final Vote
Aye: 4 (Moderate; Lewis; Brandon; Sam)
Nay: 3 (Ebowed; Rob; afleitch)
Abstain [Voted]: 1 (Earl)
Abstain [Didn't Vote]: 1 (Al)
Vacant: 1 (Northeast)

With 3 Nays and 1 declared abstention, the amendment fails.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: September 09, 2007, 10:37:29 AM »

I should note that an abstention is the same as an Aye vote.

Really?  They've been counted as Nays even since that silly court battle

Typo
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 on: September 09, 2007, 10:52:11 AM »

At present, there is one justice on the Supreme Court that I feel lacks the judicial temperament to be on there, indeed he may have been the only justice to ever lack the judicial temperament to be on there. 
We had MAS once.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: September 09, 2007, 11:10:56 AM »

Out of all the people here, I suspect Al and I disagree on the nature of judges more than anyone else.

Interesting.

(should note that I don't think that my rushed statement above is a very good summary of my views on the subject... but then we've both been here for a while...)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reading (and a lot of it over a fairly long period of time). A few other things as well o/c.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Judicial temperament? Yes, of course. More or less anyway.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would actually have preferred it if this, erm, "other action", had been attempted first. Though I suspect that I'm just about the only person here who thinks that.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.047 seconds with 12 queries.