«12. . .856857858859860861862. . .2,1812,182»
And it says, "You are not authorised to read this forum." And then he died.
Curious, very curious...
apparently duelist academy jumped through all the large regions posting this link then died minutes after
Truer words have never been spoken. That describes so many people here that it's not even funny.
Proposed:
"Upon approval of this amendment the size of the Capitalist Paradise Supreme Court shall increase from three Justices to five."
Rational to increase the room for debate and differing perspectives in the court.
Court packing! Someone's been studying Roosevelt's administration.
When are we going to surpass those idiots from Wysteria?
To that end I propose we increase the number of justices to 79 and have an additional two chief justices.
It's not court packing it is to introduce some new faces and I don't like the idea that a case if decided on a split would have to go 2-1.
Introducing "new faces" is almost precisely the language FDR used while coming up with reasons to justify his court packing plan. As for a 2-1 split, why not? Would you feel better with the US Supreme Court's routine 5-4 splits?
Another problem is the length of time it takes to get through a case. With three of us communicating via telegrams, it takes a while to get things done. With every member you add to that loop, you increase the case time exponentially.
I actually have to agree with Capitalist Producers on this one. What will the addition of two new Justices to the Supreme Court accomplish other than slowing down the process?
Members being unable to respond in quick fashion is their fault. There is nothing wrong with adding two new members of the court (well one really since the alternate would move up so its really only semi new).
I'm curious as to why you'd want this... All court cases of recent memory have gone in your favor. More justices would slow down the process, regardless of who's fault that is it's simply a fact. Furthermore, as the US Supreme Court illustrates, more justices does not mean that we would have fewer close splits. The court as we have it now gives a good ratio, 2 in agreement for every 1 opposed. Adding two more justices potentially drops the ratio to 1.3 in agreement for every one opposed. Finally the court is not a place where I want "different perspectives". The court should have only one perspective, that being the constitution. Anything else is not upholding the office and is simply furthering an agenda.
Good evening.
I am new here. Hopefully my time shall be enjoyable, prosperous and worthwhile.
Welcome I hope you enjoy your time in Capitalist Paradise.
It will not be boring, that is for certain...
If you're talking about the length of that post, I wrote it in about 15 minutes. When I was born, I was endowed with being able to write quickly, but not diplomatically.
Would doing this in a forum thread make things more efficient? One place to post instead of keeping track of telegrams. You could hide the thread to non-justices and then, if you want, reveal it after the ruling is issued. It'd be interesting to see the arguments behind the rulings that come out.
I'm still neutral on 3 vs 5 justices, Kaputer makes some good points but from my perspective as a semi-involved average citizen the court is working fine with three.
The 3 vs 5 justices debate really comes down to two counteracting issues for me: swiftness of decisions and weight of each jurors' votes.
With 3 justices, getting all the justices to discuss the case and make a decision is much faster. Each justice vote/opinion on a case has a 33% weight.
With 5 justices, discussion between justices will lengthen causing decisions to be reached slower. Each justice vote/opinion on a case has a 20% weight.
One could say that the weights reflect the proportion of CP a justice represents, so is a single justice representing 33% of CP too mcuh? Would a reduction to 20% help? Another way to look at the weights is in terms of power; each justice 33% vs. 20% of the powers given to the court. Arguments about the length of cases could be countered by the emergency powers act, justices have to respond to cases within a week of being presented to the court, but this really only expedites the opening statements of the justices.
I would like to point out that the WFE is near its character limit, so the adding 2 more justices is not possible without removing something else... maybe we would have to make a Supreme Court Dispatch instead of having each name expressly on the WFE. <-- This should not really effect anyone's decision though.
Two volunteer vote counters are needed for upcoming legislation.
It ain't mine
I can help if you want
Got kinda... quiet round here.
Too quiet...
Good afternoon.
My lessons have ended earlier today than planned.
It's only 8:30 in the morning where I live!
«12. . .856857858859860861862. . .2,1812,182»
Advertisement
