SENATE BILL: Judicial Term Length Amendment (Failed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:56:23 AM
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)
  SENATE BILL: Judicial Term Length Amendment (Failed)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: Judicial Term Length Amendment (Failed)  (Read 5276 times)
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 27, 2012, 05:26:25 AM »

Can we impeach justices? It seems like that is all the power the Senate should have.

Indeed you can, though it's rather difficult to do. (I didn't get far when I tried to impeach Sam Spade from the court..) When we drafted the new constitution I'm pretty sure we flipped the requirements from majority senate/supermajority public vote to supermajority senate/majority public vote, so it's a little easier than it used to be, but it can be done even for a Justice if it's really necessary.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 27, 2012, 06:42:25 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Unknown
Status: Pending
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2012, 09:56:28 AM »

Wouldn't the phrasing, "A Supreme Court Justice's term shall last one year or until the Justice decides to retire," basically translate into, "A Supreme Court Justice's term shall end whenever the Justice wants," in practice, or is this simply confusion on my part from ambiguous language?

Respectfully, I also do not see the point of having a lapse between re-appointments be so very long (two years). Personally, I think four months would suffice unless we intend to have each seat up to be filled at exactly the same time every cycle.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2012, 10:01:42 AM »

Why not just add two new Justices?
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2012, 11:08:17 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Unknown
Status: Pending

I'm going to call this one unfriendly because I don't think it would affect the politicization problem it was intended to solves at all.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2012, 11:25:10 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Unknown
Status: Pending

I'm going to call this one unfriendly because I don't think it would affect the politicization problem it was intended to solves at all.

How long should it be, then?
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2012, 11:29:23 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Unknown
Status: Pending

I'm going to call this one unfriendly because I don't think it would affect the politicization problem it was intended to solves at all.

How long should it be, then?

I thought the point was to get rid of re-appointments? All this does is limit them to three terms.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2012, 11:34:01 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Unknown
Status: Pending

I'm going to call this one unfriendly because I don't think it would affect the politicization problem it was intended to solves at all.

How long should it be, then?

I thought the point was to get rid of re-appointments? All this does is limit them to three terms.

Oh, I thought we were allowing re-appointments after a certain amount of time.

I'll just withdraw my amendment, then.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2012, 11:45:49 AM »

Here's a version that would eliminate re-appointments so that political considerations are not part of Supreme Court decisions:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, with structural amendments like this one, I believe it is best to have them take effect several months later so that there is no political incentive beyond support and dissent, so I'm going to propose the following amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2012, 05:09:49 PM »

I should have mentioned this earlier, but if we prohibit re-appointments entirely, couldn't that potentially lead to a shortage in potential appointees if there are fewer people available to serve on the Court?
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2012, 07:21:40 PM »

I should have mentioned this earlier, but if we prohibit re-appointments entirely, couldn't that potentially lead to a shortage in potential appointees if there are fewer people available to serve on the Court?

No because they could be appointed again later under the amendment I offered, just not consecutively.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 28, 2012, 11:14:42 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 28, 2012, 03:53:55 PM »
« Edited: July 28, 2012, 03:55:48 PM by opebo »

Yet another attempt by some of the right-wingers to politicize the court.  Couldn't you fellows have the decency to wait a bit before yet another of these transparent attempts?

One can only hope there are three Senators who respect the constitution, as there were last time round.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 28, 2012, 03:59:53 PM »

Yet another attempt by some of the right-wingers to politicize the court.  Couldn't you fellows have the decency to wait a bit before yet another of these transparent attempts?

One can only hope there are three Senators who respect the constitution, as there were last time round.

Don't you mean four? It takes atleast four to ensure failure. And there were five no votes on the last one if memory serves me.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 28, 2012, 04:06:27 PM »

One can only hope there are three Senators who respect the constitution, as there were last time round.

Don't you mean four? It takes atleast four to ensure failure. And there were five no votes on the last one if memory serves me.

No, a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds margin of victory, which is 66%.  So seven, not six.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2012, 04:09:46 PM »

One can only hope there are three Senators who respect the constitution, as there were last time round.

Don't you mean four? It takes atleast four to ensure failure. And there were five no votes on the last one if memory serves me.

No, a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds margin of victory, which is 66%.  So seven, not six.

If three people vote no, that leaves seven to potentially vote aye which is 70% in favor of passage. If four votes no that precludes passage because the best the amendment can get is 60%.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2012, 04:13:08 PM »
« Edited: July 28, 2012, 04:16:05 PM by opebo »

If three people vote no, that leaves seven to potentially vote aye which is 70% in favor of passage. If four votes no that precludes passage because the best the amendment can get is 60%.

Oh yes, you're quite correct. I apologize - it is 4 am here!  4 no votes to kill it.  7 required for passage.  Just checked, it was an encouraging 5 who voted to defend the constitution last time round.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2012, 08:14:17 PM »

To repeat my concern from earlier since nobody seemed to notice, I cannot support the amendment until the language in Section I, Subsection 6 is addressed. There is nothing yet there to specify a justice cannot serve for as long as he or she wants before resigning instead of honoring the two-year limit of their term.
Logged
AndrewTX
AndrewCT
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,091


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 29, 2012, 08:09:41 AM »

I simply can't see myself supporting this amendment, or any other. I don't favor putting term limits for on our Supreme Court.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 29, 2012, 03:22:08 PM »

Justice Antonin Scalia was giving an interview on FNS today and said in reference to the President's criticism of the Citizen's United case and the pressuring in the speech prior to the Health care ruling, after much pushing from Chris Wallace of course, "What can he do to me, I have lifetime tenure? The very reason we do is because the court sometimes has to deny the elected majority it's desires because they are unconstitutional and thus we are shielded from the whims of politics"

Slight paraphrasing in the quote of course because I don't have a transcript of it in front of me, but you get the idea.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2012, 09:53:52 AM »

The amendments have passed.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2012, 11:04:13 AM »

As Redalgo pointed out the wording of Item 6 needed to be changed to make it so that the term ends either after two years or retirement, not both.

Here's the newest amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 30, 2012, 11:28:00 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 01, 2012, 09:45:49 AM »

The amendment has passed.

What next?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 02, 2012, 12:44:13 PM »

I am non-patiently waiting here.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« 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 0.046 seconds with 12 queries.