Jump to content
270soft Forum

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Mark_W said:

I'm happy to just follow.

That's putting our system of 14 people in danger hahah The Court of Appeals could also consist of only two judges. If there is a tie, the SC Chief Justic can decide if we hear the case or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here is what I would say about the composition of the court...  1. Chief Justice @Conservative Elector 2: Solidly a member of the conservative bloc on the court, and a rigid textualist. Most econ

A Supreme Court vacancy has opened up! Justice Admin is retiring! 😉 President publishes short list, including Middle, Hestia and MBDemSoc!

It's far more interesting and dynamic than U.S. politics.

3 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Obviously I would prefer to be on the Supreme Court but I'll take any position if we need someone to take one of the less popular ones.

@Reagan04 should definitely be Chief Justice

 

6 minutes ago, Zenobiyl said:

I also vote in favor of @Reagan04

Aww thanks guys! I really appreciate it.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SilentLiberty said:

I thought @Herbert Hoover was the IRL will be a lawyer. Also @Conservative Elector 2 is quite the big fan of the judicial system. So 2 other potential good chief justice pics

True, I am. If I lived in America, I'd study constitutional law. I'd love to be guided in an institution, as I think I understand many things already despite never attended a university course or something on the American judicial system.

I'd say Reagan is THE top Chief Justice in our game.

Because we are13 instead of 14 people we'll change the system so that the SC Chief Justice gives us the brief introduction of the case.

For the sake of getting this to run, here is my idea on how to do it.

Chief Justice @Reagan04

SC:  @Conservative Elector 2, @vcczar, @The Blood, @SilentLiberty, @Herbert Hoover, @Hestia11, @Actinguy, @ThePotatoWalrus

Court of Appeals @ALiteralNeoliberal (since you volunteered for that position, you'll be the CoA Chief Justice deciding which cases are on the docket.) @buenoboss     ideally we need a third person here!!!

Attorneys @Cenzonico @WVProgressive (I think you both could be the different ideological sides we need for this position)

 

A round will work like this:

@ALiteralNeoliberal decides which case the CoA hears. I'd recommend going chronological from the early days of the US. The three members decide whether to send the case to the SC (if there are only two CoA judges, we'll have either a 2-0, or 0-2. If the decision's split @Reagan04 decides, since he's CJ whether the SC will hear the case).

@Reagan04 gives us a brief introduction to the issue. Both attorneys present us some arguments for each side and the SC decides the case.

Hopefully I didn't forget anything or anyone. Unless we find a third CoA justice in the next let's say 24 hours we'll start with two judges. @ALiteralNeoliberal can in the mean time think about the first case(s) we'll work on.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

True, I am. If I lived in America, I'd study constitutional law. I'd love to be guided in an institution, as I think I understand many things already despite never attended a university course or something on the American judicial system.

I'd say Reagan is THE top Chief Justice in our game.

Because we are13 instead of 14 people we'll change the system so that the SC Chief Justice gives us the brief introduction of the case.

For the sake of getting this to run, here is my idea on how to do it.

Chief Justice @Reagan04

SC:  @Conservative Elector 2, @vcczar, @The Blood, @SilentLiberty, @Herbert Hoover, @Hestia11, @Actinguy, @ThePotatoWalrus

Court of Appeals @ALiteralNeoliberal (since you volunteered for that position, you'll be the CoA Chief Justice deciding which cases are on the docket.) @buenoboss     ideally we need a third person here!!!

Attorneys @Cenzonico @WVProgressive (I think you both could be the different ideological sides we need for this position)

 

A round will work like this:

@ALiteralNeoliberal decides which case the CoA hears. I'd recommend going chronological from the early days of the US. The three members decide whether to send the case to the SC (if there are only two CoA judges, we'll have either a 2-0, or 0-2. If the decision's split @Reagan04 decides, since he's CJ whether the SC will hear the case).

@Reagan04 gives us a brief introduction to the issue. Both attorneys present us some arguments for each side and the SC decides the case.

Hopefully I didn't forget anything or anyone. Unless we find a third CoA justice in the next let's say 24 hours we'll start with two judges. @ALiteralNeoliberal can in the mean time think about the first case(s) we'll work on.

I find it odd that you constantly fawn over another country that you romanticize, mythologize, and idealize out of proportion, but completely lack any interest that you've admitted to in lifting a finger in any way, shape, or form for the political system of your own country. The grass is VERY RARELY greener on the other side, as the saying goes, and I'm pretty sure it's not completely so in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I find it odd that you constantly fawn over another country that you romanticize, mythologize, and idealize out of proportion, but completely lack any interest that you've admitted to in lifting a finger in any way, shape, or form for the political system of your own country. The grass is VERY RARELY greener on the other side, as the saying goes, and I'm pretty sure it's not completely so in this case.

Yeah, I don't know if it's odd as you say, but I am not that interested in Austrian Constitutional law. It's nearly not as interesting or important in everyday life as it seems to be in the US. No one thinks about the Constitution or courts when an election occurs. These things are there, but not regarded as very vital. The media also barely mentions those topics. Additionally the "European law" shadowy infiltrates any law here... 

If I'd shape my country's system, you wouldn't approve the way I am doing it, would you? So why can't I simply teach American politics/history/law at a university here? That's far more appreciable for me than entering politics actively. I could see myself in an advisory function though. 

I would probably not enter politics in the US as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Yeah, I don't know if it's odd as you say, but I am not that interested in Austrian Constitutional law. It's nearly not as interesting or important in everyday life as it seems to be in the US. No one thinks about the Constitution or courts when an election occurs. These things are there, but not regarded as very vital. The media also barely mentions those topics. Additionally the "European law" shadowy infiltrates any law here... 

If I'd shape my country's system, you wouldn't approve the way I am doing it, would you? So why can't I simply teach American politics/history/law at a university here? That's far more appreciable for me than entering politics actively. I could see myself in an advisory function though. 

I would probably not enter politics in the US as well. 

Well, we have a lot of Constitutional issues we wrangle over in Canada, and we don't have a law of Continental scope akin to the EU. But our Constitutional wrangling actually feels like it has fruit that seems realistic, because, while it's not a simple or easy prospect, amending the Canadian Constitution is realistically possible in the modern political environment. And, the mandated advice and participation of common citizens, including the very last part of the process is a popular referendum of approval. This differs greatly from the American amendment process, where THEY THE PEOPLE, the supposed empowerment, source, and bedrock of all Constitutional power, are completely cut out of the process - the Federal and State lawmakers are not required to solicit any input from the voters, and, if an amendment is passed, they have no obligation to put it to referendum, or even wait until after the next Federal election to enact it. Much of American Constitutional wrangling, in fact, seems to certain groups or individuals always "weaponizing," interpretations of their rights under the Bill of Rights to deny other groups of citizens their due rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, we have a lot of Constitutional issues we wrangle over in Canada

I admit I am not that informed about Canadian politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, buenoboss said:

Wait so what do I do

Together with @ALiteralNeoliberal and a hypothetical third Court of Appeals judge, deciding if a case chosen by Chief Justice ALiteralNeoliberal should be forwarded to the Surpreme Court or not.

If there is a split decision when lacking a third member, @Reagan04 as the SC Chief Justice will decide whether to hear the case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ALiteralNeoliberal said:

@Conservative Elector 2Should I start with IRL cases from back in the infancy of the Republic?

That would have been the plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ALiteralNeoliberal said:

Court of Appeals Chief Justice @ALiteralNeoliberalhas decided to hear the case, Alexander Chisholm, Executors v. Georgia,

( @Conservative Elector 2Do we have arguments for the Court of Appeals or do we simply vote quickly on whether we should send the case to the SC)

Well, arguments would be nice of course. However, I don't know if you all have the time to do it. So, I had planned to make this phase rather quick. But you are free to write as much as you want. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since no one showed interest so far, @ALiteralNeoliberal and @buenoboss should decide whether to send the case to the Supreme Court or not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
6 hours ago, The Blood said:

I assume this can be left to the dustbin of RP history? @Conservative Elector 2

Not necessarily from my side, but obviously the interest wasn't that great. 

I posted what to do after the decision to send it to the SC, however action never followed. I should have tagged people though, so that's on me. However, three weeks ago college hit for me again and so I wasn't able to log in here as much as I used to... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...