SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Members
Senator Scott - Committee Chair
Senator HagridOfTheDeep
Senator Marokai Blue

Current Order of Business:
Blast from Game Reform Past Amendment

Topic/Hearing Queue
Blast from Game Reform Past Amendment

Completed Tasks

• Court Reform
• Equal Rights Amendment
• The Holding CEOs Accountable Act
• Capital Punishment Abolition Amendment
• Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What shall we do first, members?  The Government Oversight and Reform Committee is currently taking up court reform, so we can start off with that (as part of our 'joint operation') or take up legislation in the queue.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm fine with that idea.

If we are going to discuss court reform, I think it may be good to consider what having two additional justices would mean. We would have two extra players on the court, which would still rarely hear cases. We would have to worry about possible allegations of court-packing (though it could be mitigated by delaying the date it would take effect).

The biggest problem with court reform is we seem to lack a collective vision of what the court should be. At the moment it is a largely distance body that overlooks affairs from afar while rarely if ever hearing cases. It acts as a fairly good game referee  and thankfully overlooked political allegiance in the Tweed case.

I suppose in order to lay out a plan for court reform we first need to lay out a vision for what the court ought to be.

I think that delaying the dates for appointments is going to be the only way to ensure that this isn't just a court-packing scheme, so that can definitely be one of the committee's recommendations.

What do you mean when you say we need to lay out a vision?  The Court already serves a purpose that's long been established, which is exactly what you said it does - that is, being a game referee.  The problems are that it's seldom needed, not all justices write their own opinions for the cases, and because there are only three people on the court, we don't get to hear from many different viewpoints.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I am also growing a bit pessimistic of actually seeing any kind of court reform pass.  Since the Gov't Oversight Committee is thinking about abandoning this, it might be a good idea that we move onto the next topic in the queue.  Still, I would like to at least vote on some kind of a recommendation before we move on.

What do TJ and Seatown think?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Sorry to intrude, but a question: could the GM create scenarios for lawsuits?

If the GM sues someone, yes.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

In correspondence with the Gov't Oversight and Reform Committee, I will open the vote on committee recommendations.


Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

On recommendation to expand the court by two members

On recommendation to require Supreme Court justices to post opinions on each case considered by the court


On recommendation to expand the court by two members
Nay.

On recommendation to require Supreme Court Justices to post opinions on each case considered by the court
Aye.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

In the estimation of the Chairmen would the Judiciary committee have sufficient time to consider and pass a recommendation on the ERA amendment, if it were to be put on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow sometime, which has been requested?

That would depend on when the current recommendation votes expire, because legislation is suppose to be considered for a period of seven days before reaching the Senate floor.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

In the estimation of the Chairmen would the Judiciary committee have sufficient time to consider and pass a recommendation on the ERA amendment, if it were to be put on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow sometime, which has been requested?

That would depend on when the current recommendation votes expire, because legislation is suppose to be considered for a period of seven days before reaching the Senate floor.

Didn't your resolution creating this committee list that as a maximum? Meaning it could go under that if necessary, correct?

I suppose so, but then again, the time it takes to consider legislation will depend on how much debate there is.  Clarence brought up a few reservations he has with the ERA, so it'd be nice for us to work out those problems during the time that we have.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

In the estimation of the Chairmen would the Judiciary committee have sufficient time to consider and pass a recommendation on the ERA amendment, if it were to be put on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow sometime, which has been requested?

That would depend on when the current recommendation votes expire, because legislation is suppose to be considered for a period of seven days before reaching the Senate floor.

Didn't your resolution creating this committee list that as a maximum? Meaning it could go under that if necessary, correct?

I suppose so, but then again, the time it takes to consider legislation will depend on how much debate there is.  Clarence brought up a few reservations he has with the ERA, so it'd be nice for us to work out those problems during the time that we have.

Clarence isn't on this committee.

I know, but he's brought up some concerns.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Damn it, I deleted that post..oh well, my point was that this committee should give its opinion and then if Senators want to raise additional concerns they can propose amendments. Mr. Moderate suggested an amendment to me for example, to include gender identity.

They can do that too, but since Clarence already raised some concerns, they can be worked out just as well in the committee.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Once again...

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

On recommendation to expand the court by two members

On recommendation to require Supreme Court justices to post opinions on each case considered by the court

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Seatown, TJ, PLEASE help us get through the amendment as fast as we can.  Thanks.

I will be a dick if necessary.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

All members have voted.  By a vote of 3-0, this Committee hereby recommends that each Supreme Court judge be required to post their own opinions for all court cases.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The Committee will now consider the Constitutional amendment authored by the Administration and introduced by myself.

AN AMENDMENT

To ensure the equal protection of all genders n the Republic of Atlasia.

Be it enacted by 2/3 of the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia.

SECTION ONE. TITLE

This amendment may be cited as the 'Equal Rights Amendment.'

SECTION TWO. AMENDMENT

1.) Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by Atlasia or by any Region on account of sex or sexual orientation towards adults.

2.) The Senate shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

First, I would like to formally give the President the opportunity to speak on behalf of his amendment.  In doing so, I would like him to address the concerns that Senate Clarence raised so we can work out any quirks in a timely fashion.

(Yes, I will be speaking in defense of the amendment, as well. )

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Also Yankee, would there be enough time for us to consider Ben's law, as well?  If there's no possible way to include that into the schedule, I suppose I can have the Committee consider both bills at the same time, but I'm very reluctant to do this.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Requiring each justice to write an opinion would require a constitutional amendment, fellows.

The point being - it is petty, and quite frankly an insult to the dignity of the Justices and more importantly the dignity and indepedence of the institution, to attempt to micro-manage the court in the way you are doing.  

Lets all step back and face the facts:  The attemps to pack the court failed.  It would be ridiculous to make a constitutional amendment to give us a writing assignment - your oversight is confined to confirmation and impeachment, not to running the court.

Actually, if you'd read the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Creation Resolution, the Committee also has jurisdiction over all courts and judges, regional and federal.  A recommendation vote itself is virtually meaningless because all it does is endorse the idea of judges having 'writing assignments.'  However, it is likely that a Constitutional amendment will sooner or later come up that would do just that.  I don't know why you're worried about "court packing," since both of the committees working on court reform have pretty much deemed that proposal dead and the chances are that it won't be considered again.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

i don't know why you're worried about "court packing," since both of the committees working on court reform have pretty much deemed that proposal dead and the chances are that it won't be considered again.

That was precisely my point - you guys failed to pack the court, so don't now in frustration just try to insult us with these demeaning writing assignmetns and micromanagement.

I don't know where you got the idea that we're just doing this all out of frustration.  There are plenty of valid reasons for requiring justices to write their own opinions.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I don't know where you got the idea that we're just doing this all out of frustration.  There are plenty of valid reasons for requiring justices to write their own opinions.

You do realize the Court is a third branch of government, don't you?  Equal to and no subsidiary to the legislative or the executive?  Your powers over us are strictly enumerated, and I see nothing in the Constitution giving you authority to give me homework or otherwise micromanage us.

As I've said, what the Judiciary Committee recommended won't even take effect unless a Senator proposes an amendment, the amendment is passed by 2/3 of the Senate, and four out of the five regions ratify it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Okay.  An opinion from the AG would be very helpful, as well.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Afleitch, what are your personal feelings on the amendment?  Do you believe that the concerns Clarence raised are legitimate ones?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Thank you, Afleitch.

Is there a definition of "sexual orientation" being used here?  This is not an uncontested concept. Is it meant here to refer to behavior as well as attraction?   If it is meant attraction, then there is no lawful reason to include the "towards adults" part at the end, since people who are attracted to youth, animals, objects, etc. should not be denied their equal rights on this basis alone so long as in their actions they abide by the law.

Since transgendered people would be covered by this as well, I think it's safe to assume that both would be defined under that term.  Do you feel that the amendment should explicitly define 'sexual orientation?'

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Do you consider such an exemption needed in light of what the Constitution says about freedom of worship?

I think it would be necessary because making this a constitutional amendment rather than simply a law puts it on an equal footing with the freedom to worship, such that a judge could rule either way if the two were to conflict. A judge could rule for instance that freedom to worship is affected less by mandating female ordination than employment discrimination is without such a mandate.

The amendment could be reworded such that would only apply to government institutions and by doing so the potential problems would be greatly reduced while relying on the Atlasia-modified version of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sex and (in Atlasia) sexual orientation. Applying such rights broadly as this amendment does would otherwise require private organizations to accept members of the opposite gender because the amendment does not grant the type of exemptions to private clubs that the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act grant. The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts however would be exempted because their members are not adults.

One problem that would remain even so is that this would mandate all male and all female bathrooms from public buildings. By drawing gender equality into the same lense as racial equality, having separate bathrooms would be discrimination. You would not be allowed to have separate bathrooms in a public institution for whites and blacks. If gender equality is legally the same as racial equality, you can't have separate mens' and womens' bathrooms. In order to keep separate bathrooms we would need some sort of clause affording some degree of inequality, perhaps something like:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My concern with that particular proposal is that it's far too vague and would allow judges to interpret the amendment in such a way that defeats its purpose.  How is 'necessary' defined in this context?  How would we set the standards for which exemptions can be permitted?

As I've stated in the bill's thread, I'm willing to consider modifying the text so that it's more specific and would assure people that the aforementioned single-gender institutions will still be allowed, but I don't think that change clarifies those protections.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If no one has anything else to add in the next 24 hours, I'm going to move to a recommendation vote on the bill and then on TJ's amendment.  After that, we will move onto Ben's law.  The Senate is already considering the bill in question, so I think we should move on from this.

EDIT: I will also be including a recommendation vote on Clarence's amendment.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The Committee will now vote on recommendations.  Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain on each.

1. On recommendation to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in its present form

2. On recommendation to amend Senator TJ's revisions to the legislation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3. On recommendation to amend Senator Clarence's revisions to the legislation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Aye
2. Nay
3. Nay

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

1. Nay
2. Aye
3. Abstain

Also, does this even matter now that the bill is on the floor anyway?

Eh, not really, but nothing we vote on here actually takes effect under its own terms.