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: July 2595
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 | 01:37:25, June 20, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | As for 8, I think a tie should go towards unconstitutional since it shows that there is not a majority for declearing it legal. Also the language in 4 is too easy, a judge should be forced to recuse him or herself if a the judges party is involved in the case and we might get a conflict of interest. The courts neutrality must be maintained at all times. Also there should be a inactive clause in this, since the supreme court is a rp thing, and needs rp active judges. So if someone is inactive in rping the judge should be considered inactive or something and forced to retire |
| Date | 02:10:54, June 20, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | I have explanained this 100 times. When a Supreme Court decision is a tie it is called "stare decisis." Literall meaning let the decision stand. What decision you may ask? The decision of the lower court. Since we don't have the decision of the lower court, we cannot base it on anything. Making it unconstitutional is unfair. It is like a jury, if one juror says innocent and the others say guilty, the defendant is not convicted, he/he is release until a new trial is held. #4- We willhave between 7 and 8 justices. So, it won;t make much of a difference. You can't force Justices to recuse themselves, it is a personal decision. If they are smart and respect the law, theywill recuse themselves. There is no need for an inactive clause. When a party is inactivated they lose everything: cabinet positions, seats in Parliament, and of course their Justice in the Supreme Court. Anyways, it won't be replaced until the term has expired for all Justices. That's why I included clause #9, for inactivity. |
| Date | 11:44:23, June 20, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | ¤#4 We can force judges to recuse themself if we put it into the law. Judges should be forced to recuse themself, since maintaing a trict neutrality policy at all times is importent And as for inactivety I was not talking about a party being inactivated, I was talking about a judge being completly inactive at the rp parts of the court, because judges need to be rp active |
| Date | 20:50:31, June 20, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | OOC: It is illegal on the real world to force judges to recuse themselves. IC: #4- Justices recuse themselves when they see it necessary. I will not force them to do so because we are no one to interfere with the Court. It will be in their best interest to recuse themselves, they will want to keep their job. There is a limit on each case for inactivity purposes. There is no point on removing Justices for inactivity because we will only be able to replace them all at once, not one by one. Those active parties who give their decision within the time frame will have their decision count, those who doesn't, won't have their vote count. Every party has a responsability to be active on the Supreme Court. If they don't want to do so, they willbe forfeiting their right to influence the decision. |
| Date | 23:40:10, June 20, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | OOC: Yeah it is illegal because there is no law that say anyone can. If the law had said they where forced to recuse themself they would have no choice. #4 They will keep there job if they dont recuse themself also, since each party has one seat a party could not recuse themself at all being as partial as they want to, without anyone being able to do anything |
| Date | 00:02:14, June 21, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | OOC: It is illegal because, at least in the U.S., there is a law that says judges or Justices decide if they should recuse themselves or not. IC: Recusing is only for one case, not for the job. Again, each Justice should know when they should have to recuse. |
| Date | 00:31:53, June 21, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | OOC: Thats what I said, its illegal to force them to recuse beause the law says its up to the judges themself. But thats the U.S, if we make it legal to force them to recuse then its legal. IC: I am saying they can completly ignore recusing themself because it has no effect on them if they dont do it |
| Date | 00:41:39, June 21, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | The President nominates the Justices. If he/she doesn't, the president will not nominate them anymore. OCC: I know it is parties who control the Justices but remember this game is about characters and they at tied to political parties, especially judges. |
| Date | 00:50:42, June 21, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | The president will be forced to nominate someone from the same party, who can just continue to not recuse themself with there new character |
| Date | 01:58:45, June 21, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | You know how this game works. Parties and charaters are different, not related whatsoever. You won't support it anyways, so don't look for flaws where there are none. |
| Date | 02:29:31, June 21, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | No flaws? I could refuse to recuse myself, and you couldnt do anything about it if I just continued to refuse recusing any of my characters |
| Date | 02:34:35, June 21, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | So. That'll be counterproducing to your case. The other Justices might find this offensive and vote against you, don't you think? If you are fair and honest, it'll be better for you and your case. |
| Date | 03:05:13, June 21, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | We have yet to agree on a supreme court case, and it would probarbly take alot to get us to agree. and seeing how it seems you and alot of the other parties have your little "coalition" thing you are probarbly gonna vote against me each time anyway, so it dosent really have any effect now does it |
| Date | 03:28:36, June 21, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | How can you know how other parties are going to vote? That is very foolish of you to say. Now, we know why you vote no. Not because you think there are "flaws", which there are none, but because of politics. Very good example for our citizens. Let all of our citizens know, this party, LLP, is only palying politics and not doing the right thing, protect democracy. |
| Date | 03:33:11, June 21, 2008 CET | From | Republican Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | We in the Progress Party would be glad to support such a bill. As it enriches the democracy, and we believe that every party should have their saying. |
| Date | 13:10:42, June 21, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | Is funny hearing the LLP critizing me for not protecting democracy. Who has activated the entire armed force including reserves, using the army to patrol the regions, and have issued shoot to kill orders? Or who was it that banned or citizens rights to choose there own education by only allowing one alternativ? And I am can know how all the other parties are gonna vote, the way you agree to vote in your organizations forum. |
| Date | 22:22:39, June 21, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | We don't agree to vote on anything. Get your facts straight and if that were the case, it is none of your business, are we clear on that? |
| Date | 23:31:20, June 21, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | If you dont do it why are you so hostile? And also if I recuse myself or not is none of your business, are we clear on that? :P |
| Date | 23:31:46, June 21, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | But should this pass I this will be the end of the supreme court, |
| Date | 01:45:20, June 22, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act |
| Message | What do you mean the end? We are expanding it, not closing it down. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 95 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 30 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 25 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "We must show that liberty is not merely one particular value but that it is the source and condition of most moral values. What a free society offers to the individual is much more than what he would be able to do if only he were free. We can therefore not fully appreciate the value of freedom until we know how a society of free men as a whole differs from one in which unfreedom prevails." - Friedrich August Hayek |