Judicial Term Limits Amendment [Failed]

[Sam Spade]

Once again, I am putting this legislation into the sixth slot on the Senate floor.  If anyone wishes to challenge my decision, please do so.

Judicial Term Limits Amendment

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

Supreme Court Justices shall serve terms not exceeding 12 months. At the end of that time, the seat shall be considered open to re-nomination. The President shall be free to re-nominate the same citizen to serve on the Court in the same capacity. The sitting Justice shall continue to serve until such time as the Senate confirms the President’s nominee.

(Sponsor: Ebowed)

[Sam Spade]

My solution would be to make the 12-month term limit clause begin with the present justices once the Amendment was passed - with spreading the terms out.  Or, one might make the individual justice terms of 6-8 months maximum and the Chief Justice of 12 months.  Just a thought.

Ex post facto laws normally deal with criminal provisions, and this is certainly not a criminal provision.

Besides, if a clause in the Constitution is in conflict with another clause in the Constitution, the standard rule of interpretation is that the latter clause wins out.

Anyways, I will vote against Porce's amendment and will be introducing one of my own with the above-stated plan.

I intend to vote for the measure, especially after the comments of Mr. Justice Opebo above.

[Sam Spade]

We are now voting on the following amendment:

I motion to add at the end of this legislation the following phrase:

"This amendment shall not apply to any Justice currently serving on the Court."

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Nay.

[Sam Spade]

In order for me to consider the plan, King, the term "inadequate" needs to be defined and it needs to be defined clearly.

[Sam Spade]

In order for me to consider the plan, King, the term "inadequate" needs to be defined and it needs to be defined clearly.

That will be for the wonderful minds of the Atlasian Senate to decide.

Well, then your amendment better give us that power.

[Sam Spade]

Bumping...  less than one day to vote on this amendment...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Sam Spade]

I motion for cloture.

Ok, we are now voting on a motion for cloture.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Aye.

[Sam Spade]

I change my vote to Nay.

[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.

[Sam Spade]

Aye.

[Sam Spade]

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.