Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: November 5460
Next month in: 02:25:48
Server time: 09:34:11, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.

Bill: Replacing a Supreme Court Justice

Details

Submitted by[?]: The Liberal Party

Status[?]: passed

Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: July 2573

Description[?]:

It has been a concern of many parties about Justices being biased. The following proposal will deal with it.

1- Any party holding a Supreme Court seat who brings up a case to it or acts as defendant, may recuse themselves from the proceedings and make a temporary appointment to fill in for that case.

2- The Justice selected will be named Acting Supreme Court Justice and will only serve for that specific case.

3- The Justice would have to be from another party in order to ensure neutrality.

4- The party holding the seat decides whether or nor they should recuse from the proceeeding and they select the party that will substitute them for that case.

This bill will pass with supermajority of 100 votes or more.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date22:57:45, May 05, 2008 CET
FromLodamun Libertarian Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageWouldnt this be a constitutional change and require a 2/3 majority?
And also could you add that the justice would have to be replaced if defending too, not just when prosecuting

Date23:12:01, May 05, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageThank you for reminding me about it. I almost forgot.

Date01:16:29, May 06, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessagePeople, I want your opinion. That is why is up for debate.

Date06:26:57, May 06, 2008 CET
FromUnited Republics Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageIf the Justice recuses himself why is he appointing the judge who will replace him? Isn't this also a conflict of interest?

Date06:29:30, May 06, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageThere might be some conflict of interest but remember this, the Justice does not have to recuse himself, we should at least give them the option of choosing his replacement. Either way, it is going to be less biased.

Date06:32:36, May 06, 2008 CET
FromUnited Republics Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageI doubt the LP would ever recuse himself. He wouldn't even hear the evidence in Gibson v Monroe before he rendered his verdict.

Date06:41:45, May 06, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageDon't make false statements. Why would I propose this bill then? Use some reasoning.

Date19:25:49, May 06, 2008 CET
FromUnited Republics Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageThere's nothing to stop a judge from recusing himself now. And you haven't done it.

Date19:52:34, May 06, 2008 CET
FromLodamun Libertarian Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageHOw about if we change the word may, with have too, so that the judge is forced to recuse him/her self

Date21:40:55, May 06, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageIn the judicial system, the judge determines if he/she needs to recuse. I will not force any party to recuse themselves. For political reasons, I am 100% sure, that any party will recuse themselves if there is need to. We are not talking about me. If you have a problem with any case debate it on that thread. The URP is more than welcome to vote no but then don't complain about Justices being biased.

Date22:41:26, May 06, 2008 CET
FromLodamun Libertarian Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageIn the judicial systme the judge usally recuse themself volunteerly, however error to do so in a clear case can be reviewed on appeal, or under mosre extreme circumstances lead to a petition for a writ of prohibition

Date22:59:59, May 06, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageThat doesn't happen very often, I would say 1 million to 1. That is why this provision is good, we allow the Justice to voluntarily recuse himself but I think making them do so is not a good idea. Let's do something, in order for a party to be eligible to be nominated for the Supreme Court, they must pledge that if they see themselves being biased in a case they will recuse themselves. But this bill will have to be passed first.

Date05:26:04, May 07, 2008 CET
FromPariah Idealism
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageIt seems to be a step in the right direction, anyone up to point out any left over flaws?

Date23:29:28, May 07, 2008 CET
FromLodamun Libertarian Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageWell I still think the justice should be forced to recuse themself , making it volunteerly is a bit to easy in my opinion

Date23:54:55, May 07, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageWe can't force a judge to recuse, you said yourself. What we can do is what I proposed. Make the parties sign a pledge if they want to be elegible for a Supreme Court nomination.

Date15:07:50, May 08, 2008 CET
FromLodamun Libertarian Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageI was refererring to how it was in the us real life court system, not expressing that it was my own opinion. We can force a judge to recuse themself if we make it law

Date22:02:55, May 08, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageYes, we can, but it wouldn't be appropriate. We can solve this by doing what I proposed, sign a pledge. And I understood you were referring to real life.

Date06:22:04, May 09, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Replacing a Supreme Court Justice
MessageThis bill failed, so complaining from other parties about Justices being biased is going to continue.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
    

Total Seats: 80

no
  

Total Seats: 48

abstain
 

Total Seats: 22


Random fact: Characters are considered to be "owned" by the player who first mentioned or created them. In practice, players may share responsibility for role-playing a character, but ultimate authority rests with the owner.

Random quote: "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America." - Bill Clinton

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 69