The Fair Wage and Community Revitalization Act (reintroduced)

[Sam Spade]

I don't see why it's a crock or a fraud to suggest that both parts of the bill would help to reduce poverty, but that's just my opinion, Sam.

At any rate, if you really want the bill split, that's fine, but I respectfully disagree about the idea that reducing poverty through helping workers and reducing poverty by helping businesses is somehow unrelated.

I was really just using some rhetorical emphasis in my speech above.

Point taken, however.

[John Dibble]

I don't see why it's a crock or a fraud to suggest that both parts of the bill would help to reduce poverty, but that's just my opinion, Sam.

At any rate, if you really want the bill split, that's fine, but I respectfully disagree about the idea that reducing poverty through helping workers and reducing poverty by helping businesses is somehow unrelated.

Consider this - say there's a bill that both authorizes the funding of a new missile defense system and at the same time one that authorizes the Air Force to use a new type of fighter jet. Both are related to the military and defense. However, the two are clearly different things - a defense against missiles and a fighter. Say, the defense system is not very good, but the jet is superb - since they're one bill, you have to vote one way on both, you can't pick and choose.

That's somewhat of the situation we have here(well, I think both are bad, but that's besides the point) - a minimum wage increase and the introduction of renaissance zones are both intended to help those in poverty, but they are clearly two very different subjects. Heck, you yourself clearly divided them - one to reduce poverty by helping workers, one to reduce poverty by helping businesses. The two are not in the least dependent upon eachother to operate, and some Senators may support one but not the other.

[Peter]

[snip]

Members of the judicial branch really ought not to comment on the internal procedures of the legislative branch, especially as the application of these procedures here is a matter of some controversy.

[John Dibble]

[snip]

Members of the judicial branch really ought not to comment on the internal procedures of the legislative branch, especially as the application of these procedures here is a matter of some controversy.

Please refer to the beginning of this thread - this has already been discussed.

[Peter]

The judiciary must not only lack impartiality but also the appearance of impartiality. Whether you think you "have this absolutely strange and unusual ability to turn off [your] personal bias and review the facts" is totally irrelevant; The citizens must not feel that there is a chance that you are biased on a bill, and the best way to display bias is to comment on stuff when you don't have to, especially something when it is the application of a rather technical SPR.

There is the concept of Separation of Powers for a damn good reason: I don't doubt that most Justices could do what you claim to be able to do, but they know that for the good of their branch of the government they must remain quiet so that they are able to maintain a position above the political fray.

[John Dibble]

The judiciary must not only lack impartiality but also the appearance of impartiality. Whether you think you "have this absolutely strange and unusual ability to turn off [your] personal bias and review the facts" is totally irrelevant; The citizens must not feel that there is a chance that you are biased on a bill, and the best way to display bias is to comment on stuff when you don't have to, especially something when it is the application of a rather technical SPR.

There is the concept of Separation of Powers for a damn good reason: I don't doubt that most Justices could do what you claim to be able to do, but they know that for the good of their branch of the government they must remain quiet so that they are able to maintain a position above the political fray.

Well we hold a different opinion then. As I've pointed out, just because I don't state an opinion on the bill doesn't mean I don't have one - there is ALWAYS a chance a judge is biased on any bill. I've also pointed out that my opinion on the bill itself doesn't matter - only constitutionality is important for my job.

And may I point out that just because I am a judge does not mean I am not a citizen of Atlasia - I have the same rights everyone else does, which includes free speech. My tax dollars fund the government just like everyone else's, and I'm going to say how I think they should be spent - and I respect the seperation of powers, as it is the job of the Senators to make the final call. Further, it seems ridiculous to me that my opinion should be censored when it could make invaluable contributions that might result in more effective government simply in the name of an illusion of impartiality.

[Gabu]

Okay, good, I see that Naso has voted.

With five votes against to three in favor, and with one abstention, I hereby declare Sam Spade's second amendment to have failed.

Wait one second while I split this up.  While I agree with those who oppose this measure that it could certainly be shown that the two parts of this bill are both means to the same end, it remains a fact that from the giant amount of debate over one part compared to the paltry amount of debate over the other part, the effectiveness of both means to reach that end are certainly not equal in everyone's mind.  In the interest of giving both sections equal chance to be debated and of not having one contentious section eclipse the other, I think that splitting the bill up is the best option.

[Gabu]

This bill has now been split into two parts, and as such, this thread will now be locked.

Section 1 is now the Fair Wage Act.

Sections 2 and 3 are now the Community Revitalization Act

Please refer to the appropriate thread if you wish to continue debate.