SENATE BILL: The Judiciary Reform Amendment of 2012 (Failed)

[tmthforu94]

Either way, the Supreme Court should be more involved in the game

Increasing the number of people involved isn't necessarily going to do that.  The Court can only work with what it is given.

True, but court cases themselves could become much more involving if there are more justices participating in them.

I would say during the last 2 cases we had, people were very interested and involved in the cases. I think the "problem" is that there aren't enough cases, not that there aren't enough justices.

[Napoleon]

Either way, the Supreme Court should be more involved in the game

Increasing the number of people involved isn't necessarily going to do that.  The Court can only work with what it is given.

True, but court cases themselves could become much more involving if there are more justices participating in them.

I would say during the last 2 cases we had, people were very interested and involved in the cases. I think the "problem" is that there aren't enough cases, not that there aren't enough justices.

Right, we need more active regions, not a more political court.

[Ebowed]

To those who think this would politicize the Court, I feel I should ask- how are appointments themselves not politicized, especially when the president is always going to appoint someone who shares his judicial philosophy?

I feel that it is worth mentioning that I was appointed to my current position by a relatively conservative president, and that recent confirmation hearings for justices have been largely non-political.  Rightfully so, of course, given the inherently non-political nature of the Supreme Court.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I firmly agree with those who are against the politicization of the Court; I simply don't believe my bill will lead to that.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

To those who think this would politicize the Court, I feel I should ask- how are appointments themselves not politicized, especially when the president is always going to appoint someone who shares his judicial philosophy?

I feel that it is worth mentioning that I was appointed to my current position by a relatively conservative president, and that recent confirmation hearings for justices have been largely non-political.  Rightfully so, of course, given the inherently non-political nature of the Supreme Court.

Okay, but then I still don't see how this amendment necessarily politicizes the Court, especially if CJOs aren't elected positions in any of the regions. (One thing I am not sure of... if that happens to be a factor that might conflict with this, I'm probably not going to vote for the amendment.)

Either way, the Supreme Court should be more involved in the game

Increasing the number of people involved isn't necessarily going to do that.  The Court can only work with what it is given.

True, but court cases themselves could become much more involving if there are more justices participating in them.

I would say during the last 2 cases we had, people were very interested and involved in the cases. I think the "problem" is that there aren't enough cases, not that there aren't enough justices.

I still believe that there would be some more engagement.  Hell, at least the CJO positions would have more of a purpose to fulfill.  The existing CJOs don't have much of a role in this game and I'm willing to bet that most of those positions are vacant for this very reason.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Scott's amendment is friendly and appreciated

Which one? He offered them seperately.

I misread; they're both friendly and appreciated.

[bgwah]

I think there have been like two cases since I joined the court. We don't have enough cases as is!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem with the CJOs is the same as the problem with the Justices, lack of cases. I don't see how putting them into the same building will solve that problem.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendments have both passed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Anything else or is it time for a vote?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hello! Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone home?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'm willing to go to a final vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators, this bill is now at final vote so please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Aye

[Redalgo]

Aye

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Aye

[Sbane]

Nay. This will not lead to more activity for the Supreme Court, only more cases can. I hope my fellow Senators will vote against this unnecessary amendment.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay


I am afraid this will create more problems then it will solve.

[LastVoter]

Nay

[AndrewTX]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This has enough votes to fail, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Napoleon]

Nay

I don't agree with you on everything but I sure am glad I voted for you.