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: Amendment to the Supreme Court Act
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: September 2583
Description[?]:
The following amendments are going to be made to the Supreme Court Act
1- The Supreme shall have a member from each party with seats in Parliament with one vote per each Justice.
2- Parties with no seats in Parliament can only qualify if they have been formed at least for five years at the time of nomination.
3- All Justices will be replaced together, meaning all the nominees will be nominated together to avoid politics to leave any party out, and rejection will constitute rejection of all nominees.
4- Any Justice can recuse himself/herself but no replacement may be named.
5- Openings in the Supreme Court cannot be filled until the term has ended in which case clause 3 would aplly.
6- Parliament will confirm the nominees with more than 50% of the seats available at the time and according to clause 3.
7- When Supreme Court Justices would like to speak at the proceeding, they must write their names to be identified, otherwise it will be taken as being said by a party or party member.
8- When a tie occurs, the action is not declare unconstitutional, thus making it legal until further decision by the Supreme Court.
9- Each case is going to have a deadline of one year in which each side must be presented and the Justices must give their decision. If the deadline is reached and a Justice has not made his/her decision, his/her decision will not count. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:58:02, May 26, 2008 CET |
From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act | | Message | The only thing about having a justice from each party is the fact that for the supreme court to work we need to have rp active characters. If 3 or 4 of the judges dont rp then the supreme court will not get anywhere. Also, since we are 8 parties when the nation is filled up, how to decide if the court gets a tie between the judges? |
| Date | 01:32:57, May 27, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act | | Message | I explained that when a tie occurs, the term used is stare decisis, which means that the decision of the lower court, the one that came before the Supreme Court is the one to use. Since we don't have that decision what we can do is to count the seats of the parties voting in favor and the parties voting against, the side with more seats win. After all, more people voted for them in the elections.
I am going to add a deadline to this amendment something like all Supreme Court cases close one year after submission at which time Justices who haven't voted have to vote or the case will be closed and their votes not counted. Most parties log in quite often, so it shouldn't be a problem. |
| Date | 02:35:13, May 27, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act | | Message | Remember, lawyers go to the Supreme Court not parties. I understand your point but that's how the process works and also we have a 30 years limit on Justices. |
| Date | 03:08:35, May 27, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act | | Message | Since they are Justices, they have to be confirmed by Parliament, it merely procedure. To eliminate any politics from it, they all have to be confirmed at once. Parties don't go to the Supreme Court, individual people do. |
| Date | 22:15:01, May 27, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act | | Message | It is a Constitutional, we all know that, I guess. What is wrong with the wording of this bill? This amendment will include every party in the Supreme Court. The member of the Court either a get confirmed ALL or get rejected ALL. Same term limit of 30 years. I don't see the problem with this amendment. |
| Date | 08:22:52, May 28, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act | | Message | Separation of branches and checks and balances. I don't expect you to understand that. You vote no because you want to vote no, not because there is something wrong with this bill. |
| Date | 22:39:45, May 28, 2008 CET |
From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act | | Message | This bill will not freeze any new parties. Only up to five years. Do you just make up stuff as you go along?
It needs 100 votes.
To LLP and URRA:
Let's see what your opinion is when you are not in the Supreme Court. You are simply against a democratic Supreme Court. |
| Date | 05:41:15, May 29, 2008 CET |
From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act | | Message | The Supreme Court isn't about majorities, it's about logical debate - sadly, something the Liberals do not understand. The Liberals had the opportunity to stack the court with the first three justices. Now that the court has ruled against Liberal attempts to consolidate power exclusively in that party, it feverously wants to expand the court. While I understand a desire for all parties to vote, I have seen no evidence that new parties will contribute anything to the process. Parties currently not on the court have the power to bring cases and file briefs in court cases - few have decided to do so. Adding parties uninterested in debate will not add vibrancy or insight to the Supreme Court. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 86 |
| no | Total Seats: 64 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
| Random quote: "'The illusion of Pontesi nationhood'. The Serpent speaks. How can they say these things? How can they call our country an illusion? You can see it clear as day, these people won’t stop until they’ve destroyed us all." - Morgan Einar, former Pontesian general |