SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT)

[TJ in Oregon]

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.

[TJ in Oregon]

I agree that the only thing we all seem to be in agreement on is requiring each justice to write a public opinion. The rest seems to have just run into too much opposition and divergent interests.

[TJ in Oregon]

Sorry for not voting here after voting elsewhere for longer than it should have taken.

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

[TJ in Oregon]

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.

[TJ in Oregon]

Yeah I agree. There's no point in having two threads operating on the same topic simultaneously.

[TJ in Oregon]

1. Nay
2. Aye
3. Abstain

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

[TJ in Oregon]

The Committee will now consider the legislation introduced by Senator Ben.

The Holding CEOs Accountable Act

1.  Any CEO of a corporation convicted of a crime related to his tenure at the corporation shall forfeit the benefits associated with his position upon departure from the current position.

2.  If the CEO is convicted after he has begun to collect his retirement, then the retirement shall be severed for all future years.

3.  This legislation shall take effect for all convictions occurring after January 1, 2013.

To start, I would like to invite Senator Ben to the committee to defend his bill.  TJ, Seatown, opinions on this bill?

In Clause 2, how would stock options be treated? If an option has already been awarded but not vested, would the CEO still be able to receive it?

Also, why CEOs in particular as opposed to other executive officials? Is the company president not responsible in the same way? The CFO? Board members?

[TJ in Oregon]

I meant with regards to Clause 2 because if an option has already been awarded it could be argued that it is part of retirement he has already received before being convicted. Or would this require the executive to pay back retirement from previous years?

[TJ in Oregon]

Scott if you don't mind, I would like to try a revision of the bill to vote on with the final vote (Sorry for taking such a long time to post this, real life has been getting in the way ):

The Holding CEOs Accountable Act

1.  Any CEO executive official or board member of a publically traded corporation convicted of a crime of corruption related to his tenure at the corporation shall forfeit the benefits associated with his position upon departure from the current position.

2. The term "pension" shall also include any stock options that the executive has been awarded but has not yet exercised.

3. Crimes of corruption include but are not limited to bribery, fraud, embezzlement, racketeering, and perjury.

4.  If the CEO is convicted after he has begun to collect his retirement, then the retirement shall be severed for all future years. The provisions in Section 1 will not apply to any payment already made to the executive official or board member.

5.  This legislation shall take effect for all convictions occurring after January 1, 2013.

I still worry this could risk being struck down by a court as an ex post facto law in a world where corporate executives were actually present and had real money (though I doubt anyone here would take up their mantle) for the stock option provision, but without it, the bill would have no teeth whatsoever. In fact, without a true ex post facto law, all an executive would need to do is retire and cash in all his options immediately to avoid conviction, so this will have limited value.

[TJ in Oregon]

1. Nay
2. Aye

[TJ in Oregon]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First I would like to acknowledge what a quick turn-around that was!

We have spent countless threads (and hours) as a senate body infighting about whether or when our constitution should expressedly ban conscription despite it not being in force. I would like to see the same discussion on another topic that is banned by statute: capital punishment.

Capital punishment where implemented has not been shown to be a crime deterrent. It is often more costly than life imprisonment because of the cost of many appeals. In many cases, capital punishment is used as an instrument of revenge for the family of a victim than to protect a community against violence. If the government can take a man's life in a civilian court where society could be protected as well with him behind bars, what can it not take? If there is an injustice in our constitution, the lack of protection of the right to life is the greatest. While the largest violation of this within our borders is in the multitude of legal abortions performed every day, the political lines we are so deeply beholden to prevent such a constitutional protection in a broad sense; however, I believe that our ideological divide is not a chasm so great that it cannot be crossed for this one simple measure. I believe this is a measure that can and should be passed in this committee, in our senate, and by the Atlasian public.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I yield back the rest of my time.

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye