Judicial Term Limits Amendment [Failed]

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

That's an acceptable idea, but if there's a tie, the issue should just fail and the Justice is found adequate.

I like the idea too.  I tried to flesh out something along those lines back on Aug 22 in my campaign thread, though my plan does not call for citizen involvement.

It sets up a supermajority requirement for removal (specifically, 7 of 10 Senators) and allows such a vote only once a year at specified intervals for each judicial seat.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

It seems reasonable to leave the personal definition of inadequacy up to the Senators. It would be essentially impossible to specifically define what sorts of offenses Senators could or could not oppose the renewal of a justice's term on (barring, I suppose, complete mental incapacity). Perhaps a line about "the Senators' individual discretion" could be added.

Especially when Senators are just going to justify it however they want in their head anyway.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

...so that they're free to make unpopular—but judicially sound—decisions.

'Judicially sound'?  That's just another way of saying 'I don't like his decision', Mr.Rightwing.

Ho, ho, ho, got me pegged!

Aye.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'm happy with this version of the bill.

Aye.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Do you need cloture after a certain amount of time?

No. But we now have cloture anyways.

No, you still need PBrunsel (because DWTL hasn't voted on anything since even before his defeat).

Or you could just run out the clock.  In 1 hour 10 minutes, the DWTL seat goes vacant, and you only need 6 votes.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Aye.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

...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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

...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

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?!