Excellent. I thank you for your consideration.
1. What legal experience to do you have in Atlasia or in RL, and how would you apply it to the position of Supreme Court Justice?My character in the best-selling book series "Real Life" has no legal experience. In Atlasia, my experience is manifold. I have been a delegate at every Constitutional Convention since the founding of the Republic. I was the first Governor elected under the First Constitution, and served as Governor (or equivalent) of the Midwest for several years, intermittently. As a part of my duties, I was very active in writing and re-writing the regional constitutions as well as the national ones. I was also for some time the Chief Judicial Officer of the Midwest; however, I never heard a court case in that role (despite my tenure being quite long), as the Midwest was a calm and cooperative region. I was also briefly Secretary of Forum Affairs, the predecessor to the modern Department of Federal Elections and Census Bureau. This gives me extensive experience in ensuring Atlasia's, and a regional government's, proper function.
2. What is your main legal philosophy?Atlasia cannot be safely and serenely managed unless we play by the rules. I believe as a judge my job would be to interpret the law in line with its text, precedent, custom, and its intent to make sure those rules were followed.
3. How do you define reasonable doubt and how would you apply this to Criminal trials?To my knowledge, a definition of such has not been litigated, at least under the current Constitution. Certainly the cognitive science literature teaches us that the perception of certainty is a tricky devil. However, perhaps a decent definition would be: enough certainty that someone (say, a juror) could not imagine being in a world where the defendent was guilty.
4. You have been largely absent from Atlasia recently, how can you assure us that you will remain active if confirmed to the Supreme Court?I believe my recent lack of activity within Atlasia could be seen as a boon, not a bust. I have little to no loyalties to the power structures currently in place. My loyalty would be to the law.
5. Can you please complete the following two case studies, stating the main issues in the cases, your decision in the cases,and the reason you reached this decision. Please use Atlas law in your case studies. Case 1 S. Steel v Southern Region
As an Associate Justice of Fremont, this case may not end up on my desk! I would not have original jurisdiction. I will not comment on the Southern Constitution in this case.
But let us say that this case was sent to the Supreme Court at large. I believe this could be a federally justiciable action. According to Article VIII, Section 1 of the Fourth Constitution:
This clause establishes federal law as the supreme law. According to the provisions of the LGBTQ+ Rights Act, Section 1:
The law requiring washrooms that correspond to the "birth gender" in a public school clearly falls afoul of Titles III and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended to include gender identity under federal law. Indeed, such provisions could also be used to strike down the ID law, as access to government programs often requires some form of ID.
Case 2 M. Fox v Fremont
Again, I do not believe that collective bargaining rights have been adjudicated in Atlasian law under the current Constitution, neither in court cases nor in the legislature. Certainly the right of the people to collectively organize is an important one. Can the government compel membership in a union as a requisite for employment? I believe the answer is "no"; Abood v. Detroit Board of Education suggested that workers can opt out of membership in the union, even if they are required to pay union dues. However, can they opt out of those dues? I believe the answer to that is also "no". To the extent that the union negotiates the conditions of their employment, workers who are not members of the union benefit from the union's role. As such, it is fair to expect them to pay into a system that brings them benefits. At the same time, I believe it would be unconstitutional to require due-paying non-members to support the political activities of the union involved; those funds should be set aside in a way that only supports the negotiation activities of the unions, not the political ones.
I may be a bit slow in responding, as I'll be participating in protests, etc., this weekend. However, I should be back in business on the 21st.
