SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Gov't Oversight and Reform (Recommendations)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Insert picture of RL Congressional Committee

Members
Senator NC Yankee - Committee Chair  
Senator Scott
Senator benconstine

Current Order of Business:

Topic/Hearing Queue
Committee Startup Procedures
Updating the Wiki

Completed Business
Expansion of Court by Two Members - Not Recommended by Committee
Contempt of Congress Act - Recommended by Committee
Interaction of Officials
Absence of the SoIA

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What should we do first, members?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is there any pending legislation the committee can consider?

Do you have anything in mind, Senator?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Anything dealing with the functionality or effectiveness of the government is fair game, thus are tentacles stretch into other areas to an extent that it relates to that. With the reform part comes any alteration or change in the goverment.

I think we should consider doing a hearing at some point to establish the template, as well. Everything we do will be used as guideance by the others and I fear that without the guideline of precedents we create, the other committees will be less likely to succeed. Having the likely chairs of the other committees here will help with that process.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The most significant "reforms" dealing with the Veep and Judicial Branch are already before the Senate.

I had wanted to haul the GM and SoIA here before the committee as part of a joint hearing but the GM will be gone starting on Sunday. Most specifically I wanted to hammer our the causes of continued unemployment and solutions from both of them. As part of that hearing we could also glean feedback on the FoxConn bill and the Redalgo's remaing "masterpieces".

Since all the attempts so far to reform the Judicial Branch have failed perhaps we should look into that since it involves activity and functioning of the gov't body and not necessary "law itself" which is the sole purview of the soon to be created Judicial Committee. We can then pass along recommendations or hand of such issues to that committee to consider as they arise.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We could still bring Morgieb before here on his own, but I fear the GM should go first or come along and they should have time together to prepare the information we may demand which is why that is problematic.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do the committee members desire to discuss Judicial Reform measure of the President and the underlying issues motivating it?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That would probably be up to the Judiciary Committee to do.

WAR OF THE CHAIRMEN!!!!

The issue deals with activity of a gov't body and is thus within our jurisdiction as a result.

What does Senator Ben think?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, but the Judiciary Committee is also delegated jurisdiction over federal courts and judges.  Perhaps both committees could take the issue up?

I don't see what the problem with that arrangement would be. I beleive I already suggest joint investigation or the passing of a certain investigation off on another committee at a certain point during said investigation.

I still would like to know what Senator Ben thinks.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay, Senators lets get started then.


We should debate/answer the following concerns to start off with:

What issue/concern is motivating the desire for change?

What proposals have been offered and considered so for?

What present proposal are we considering?
- Expanding the court by two members.

What is the benefits of doing that in light of the problem motivating these discussions?

What potential drawbacks exist that need to be at least acknowledged before potentially proceeding with this change?

What are the opinions of several people who this would effect or persons who would otherwise be listened to intently if an opinion were giving regarding this preposed change?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Isn't the purpose of the court meant to provide a check on executive/legislative excess by concentrating judicial power into the hands of a unelected, lifetime judges?

How does changing the court, increase the number of cases?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't doubt the benefit of having "cooler" court cases, but what I am concerned about extent to which that is an improvement when weighed against potential drawbacks that could arise from this. One of the biggest concerns is the motivation for doing so, "breaking up a power concentration", seems to be contrarty to intent and spirit of the motivation that necessitated the court's creation. Courts can and should be expanded in size at points, but that justification by the Senator worries me.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are we still discussing this, here?

I would like a response from Senator Ben.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would the Committee members desire the invitation of the Justices to offer their opinion on this since they have been outspoken on previous reform attempts already?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do you agree, Scott?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Justices have been invited to respond on this matter.



I also concur with mandated opinion drafts if such is possible. I inquired about legal ways to address this matter with the Chief Justice and haven't recieved a response. Since the Justices have been invited to testify here I would like it if they may also opine on this matter as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It would appear that all three of our highest court's members have differing opinions only in that they are in various degrees of opposition.

Unless more feedback or testimony is desired from some person on this matter, I think we should begin to move on.

I think at this point we should have the members get on the record with statements or some sort, followed by a vote on a recommendation, both to the Senate as a whole and to the other committee. We should focus our recommendations, reasonings and justifications to primarily issues of function and effectiveness of the measure in terms of achieving some type of reform, in this case trying to encourage activity of the Supreme Court.

What are thoughts of the other members with regards to proceeding in such a fashion?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the final recommendation will require a vote on atleast two questions.

Perhaps we can split this topic, finish one and continue to debate the logistics of requiring the judges to post opinions on all cases and/or deliberating in public. We could include in our recommendation to the Judiciary committee that they pursue the details of this issue "draft opinions reform", with only a recommendation that the general idea be pursued.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Does the other member of this committee have any comments he would like to offer on the matter before we proceed to votes?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think we should get to a vote soon, though.  If possible, I'd like to schedule the Judiciary Committee's recommendation vote around the same time as this committee's recommendation vote.

I was under the impression that your committee would work out the details of the draft opinion issue for a period of time after we wrapped on the matter?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Alright I will start the vote on the recommendations then:

In opinion should the Supreme by expanded by the addition of two more members?
Please answer with Aye, Nay or Abstain

Should all the Supreme Court Justices be required to post opinions on each case considered by the court?
Please answer with Aye, Nay or Abstain


Ben can offer an final comments during the vote if he so desires.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I apologize for forgetting Scott is on both committees. I also question the usefulness of having two committees discuss in different threads the same thing.

That wasn't suppose to happen. I anticipated that both would discuss at most, different aspects of the same issue, but not 100% the same things.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In opinion should the Supreme by expanded by the addition of two more members?
Nay.

Should all the Supreme Court Justices be required to post opinions on each case considered by the court?
Aye.
 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The committee has decided not to recommend expansion of the court by 2 members, but has unanimously decided to recommend requiring that all Supreme Court Justices write opinions on each court case.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We can proceed with my intended goal of deliberating the effect or lack thereof of recent economic policies on the general economy, or we can deviate quickly to a topic relating to these committees directly and thus discuss Ben's Contempt legislation?

What do the committee members think about this?