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: Abolish the Supreme Court
Details
Submitted by[?]: The Liberal Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: April 2586
Description[?]:
| Now more than ever, I have reasons to believe that the Supreme Court is not only disfunctional but ineffective. Take a look at this Supreme Court case: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=188657 "I do think we can actually do this cases with two judges since I think we can reach a consensus on this. Chief Justice Jack White: Since there is nothing in the constitution or general law that says that the parliament cant propose a treaty I dont see how it is illegal. The MoFA and the president are the two government official who can represent our nation abroad, but treaties generally deals with issues that affect our nation directly, so it would be well within the parliaments jurisdiction as the legislative branch to propose a treaty and then ratify it". The Chief Justice himself (LLP) made a decision without hearing any argument by both sides. I admit that I did the same thing myself when I had a seat in the Supreme Court. "I'd actually like the court to hear an argument by the Liberal Party first; although it's likely we'll agree, I think the court needs to be run on a more professional level. Once the LP posts an axact rationale for why Mr. Gibson violated the law, we should begin our discussions". The URRA did the same thing but they had the courtesy of saying my argument was really needed only for professionalism but they had already made their minds up. That is without counting the fact that they are the defendants on the case. What more evidence do you want? This is clear, the Supreme Court is a conflicting body who does not apply the law as it should be done. This bill also calls for a no-confidence vote on the members of the Supreme Court and the blocking of all funds to the Supreme Court. This motion only needs a majority of votes in Parliament. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:00:44, June 01, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Abolish the Supreme Court |
| Message | The Minister of Finance Patrick Yates has announced that with authorization from Prime Minister Kate Williams all funds allocated to the Supreme Court will be withheld effective immediately unless the motion in Parliament submitted by The Liberal Party calling for the withholding of funds is not passed. |
| Date | 12:49:21, June 01, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Abolish the Supreme Court |
| Message | As you said you did the same, so I dont think you should have been the one to bring this up, someone else should. |
| Date | 19:05:39, June 01, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Abolish the Supreme Court |
| Message | I have the right to do so. I gave my example so everyone sees how the Supreme Court works. |
| Date | 22:19:12, June 01, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Abolish the Supreme Court |
| Message | Also isnt proposing to withold the funds and therbye effectivly closing down the supreme court against the constitution since we have to maintain a supreme court, and the supreme court is not maintained without funding? |
| Date | 22:52:33, June 01, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Abolish the Supreme Court |
| Message | The URP Trust could fund the Supreme Court, although perhaps with reduced staff. I'm unsure if cutting funds is illegal - I'd have to reread the act if a case was brought. As for the claim that my Justice's mind was made up ahead of time is simply wrong. He had leanings -yes- like any other human being, but clearly stated that an argument had to be made. He listened to these arguments with an open mind unlike LP or LLP Justices and rendered a verdict. If LP has evidence to the contrary, I suggest he provide it rather than introducing his insane opinions as fact. |
| Date | 23:04:39, June 01, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Abolish the Supreme Court |
| Message | You clearly said you had made your mind up. I quoted you in the description. LLP, show me where in the Constitution it says funds must be provided to the Supreme Court. We are not closing down the Court in any way, we are just witholding the funds, that is Parliament's and the cabinet's power. It can work with donations or the already weak (or what is left of) URP Trust. |
| Date | 15:15:43, June 02, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Abolish the Supreme Court |
| Message | anyways this bill need 101 votes to pass |
| Date | 15:18:57, June 02, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Abolish the Supreme Court |
| Message | 100 votes. |
| Date | 19:15:41, June 02, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Abolish the Supreme Court |
| Message | no 101 votes. But anyway it has failed |
| Date | 19:25:12, June 02, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Abolish the Supreme Court |
| Message | If you do the math right (use a calculator), 2/3 is 100 votes. This is what you do: Take the number of seats (150) and multiply by 2, which is equal to 300. Then you divide that by 3, which is equal to 100. See, as simple as that. It is just like a treaty, 100 votes. |
| Date | 21:24:44, June 02, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Abolish the Supreme Court |
| Message | A 2/3 majority is 66.66666 and so on %. In effect this is 67%. 150/100*67= 100.5 which = 101 votes. |
| Date | 21:45:33, June 02, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Abolish the Supreme Court |
| Message | If you knew math correctly, you would use the correct numbers. DON'T ROUND. Two thirds is the exact number not 66.6666666......... This is an advice, never use decimals if you can use fractions because decimals give you an approximation, fractions give you the exact number, didn't your math teacher tell you that. If you ever take a Calculus class, don't do it because your are going to get screamed at. I explained to you how it works in a previous post. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 44 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 71 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 35 |
| Random fact: Particracy has 464 player slots. |
| Random quote: "I am interested in politics so that one day I will not have to be interested in politics." - Ayn Rand |