HB 1192: Nonpartisan Judiciary Amendment

[Pragmatic Conservative]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
Sponsor:GovanahJake
House Designation: HB 1192


Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I open the floor for 72 hours for debate on this bill. We also need a sponsor for this bill because of LouisvilleThunder resignation from the house.

[The Govanah Jake]

I'll support this. A constitutionally bound judiciary is always important.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Representatives have 24 hours to object to Govanah Jake sponsorship of this bill.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Here is my reasoning for the importance of passing this bill.

I'm reintroducing this amendment to the Atlasian Constitution written by Former Senator ZuWo which failed to pass the Senate during the Congress in which it was proposed. I think this Congress should be given an opportunity to examine and pass this necessary reform in order to ensure the fairness of Supreme Court appointments by limiting the potential for conflicts of interest.

[windjammer]

You do realize that this would not bar Supreme Court Justices to run a party if he wants?

[Pragmatic Conservative]

 Govanah Jake has assumed sponsorship of this bill.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

While this bill sounds great in theory how would we ensure that these same individuals aren't doing unofficial party business during election campaigns. I know dfw as an example was one of are main GOTV people back when he was a Fed and according to this amendment he wouldn't need to change his behavior one iota if he was a federal judge.

[Leinad]

While this bill sounds great in theory how would we ensure that these same individuals aren't doing unofficial party business during election campaigns. I know dfw as an example was one of are main GOTV people back when he was a Fed and according to this amendment he wouldn't need to change his behavior one iota if he was a federal judge.

Other examples include myself () and Adam and Windjammer at various points. One does not need to have a title handed out by a party to be involved in the affairs of said party.

It's not a horrible idea in theory and I don't think it would have a negative effect (although maybe there would be an unintended consequence that bites us in the posterior?), but I think that we just have to stick with finding Justices we can trust to recuse themselves when appropriate cases come up.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So this just requires judges to relinquish party leadership titles rather than party membership?

[RFayette]

So this just requires judges to relinquish party leadership titles rather than party membership?

This is my understanding of the bill, yes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are we ready for a final vote?

[wxtransit]

I'll motion for a final vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Baring no objections between now and then a final vote shall commence at 3:40 PM EST, Representatives please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Anyone who votes early doesn't get cake.

Trying this out for size since it is less than 3 hours away. 

[windjammer]

I just would like to say it is unnecessary. There are no Justices that are right now politically active and it might encourage them to be even less active. Additionnally, it wouldn't even bar them from having a party role as often those who de facto lead aren't Chairman/Vice-Chairman (for example Griffin/Windjammer in the 2014-2015)

[wxtransit]

Aye.

[Oakvale]

Nay.

Windjammer's entirely correct -- if we want to go down this route that only practical way of preventing political activity by Justices would be an outright ban on just that. Such would, of course, be extremely difficult to enforce. But a ban on officially holding an office would, if anything, only serve to push political activity behind the scenes and into the shadows, making the problem it purports to solve worse.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Windjammer's entirely correct -- if we want to go down this route that only practical way of preventing political activity by Justices would be an outright ban on just that. Such would, of course, be extremely difficult to enforce. But a ban on officially holding an office would, if anything, only serve to push political activity behind the scenes and into the shadows, making the problem it purports to solve worse.

This is indeed problematic and one that ironically myself and others pointed out in 2016. The very types that would indeed be engaging in wrong doing, would be the ones this is completely toothless to do anything about.

[Bidenworth2020]

NAY

[Blair]

I just would like to say it is unnecessary. There are no Justices that are right now politically active and it might encourage them to be even less active. Additionnally, it wouldn't even bar them from having a party role as often those who de facto lead aren't Chairman/Vice-Chairman (for example Griffin/Windjammer in the 2014-2015)

I echo this. The roles of 'officers' in parties are fairly redundant, and frankly if the parties really wanted to get around this, then they could- either through not being the de-facto leader, or through creating other roles.

There are people who are party chairs who I would trust to be on the court, and would trust their judgement/skills, and there are people who have never served as party chairs who I'd question being on the court.

[wxtransit]

Given recent reasonings for concern, I change my vote to Nay.

[RFayette]

Nay

[RC (a la Frémont)]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This has enough votes to fail presently.

Since this is presently failing, I am going to go against the grain and vote Aye because while I most certainly do share the concerns expressed about this particular amendment, I think it is an important to express a commitment to the independence of the judiciary and my hope is that said goal may indeed be advanced, but through other more practical means.

AYE

[Bidenworth2020]

NAY