Citizens against Court Case #9 - Page 2

Nimitz · January 13, 2003, 16:51

Well at least we've had gov. expereance as a party.

J/K

Meshelic · January 13, 2003, 18:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimitz
Well at least we've had gov. expereance as a party.

J/K

Only because the ALP hasn't been around for a term.

Be careful! Potentially the next President, SMC and FAM could be ALP members....

civman2000 · January 13, 2003, 22:10

The COurt has told me not to post in the court thread, so this is a response to MJW I would like to make:

In the court case thread MJW said:

Quote:

My last arugment is that spirt and the law are 2 different things. Therefore nothing can be done in the name of the spirt because it is not spelled out in the con.!

The precedent set in Court Case 5 seems to very clearly disagree with this:

Quote:

Reddawg did libel Mr. Orange. This action is not in violation of the Code of Laws. It is however something which we have just ruled upon and enunciated as common law. It is applicable in this case and in future cases. [emphasis added]

Is this not an example of the spirit being placed above the law? Would you consider a ruling in your and skywalker's favor in this case to overturn COurt Case 5?

MJW · January 13, 2003, 22:30

They Redwang libel Mr. Orange but it was not in the Code of laws. So they could not do anything to him.

civman2000 · January 13, 2003, 22:45

No, if you look at the ruling they chose not to do anything to him. The key thing is that they acknowledged the existence of rules not even hinted at in the COnstitution. WOuld not, then, that RL takes precedent over the game, which is slightly hinted at in the COnstitution, be a reasonable principle as well?

MJW · January 13, 2003, 22:59

In that Con. because it had the "9th amendement"

Meshelic · January 13, 2003, 23:03

Well the case is closed anyways, so we'll see how the Court rules on this.

I'd like to think that in some small way the people who joined with me in this thread helped end that case when it did, but of course, it was on it's way out anyways.

Although public sentiment (or discontent), especially in democracies can affect change, though this thread is hardly an example of it. I was hoping there were more people out there that felt like I did on this issue, thankfully I was right.

Let's see what happens.

adaMada · January 14, 2003, 00:08

Let me say one thing while I'm here -- I know I'm skipping a half dozen (fascinating and very worthy) issues covered in this thread, but there's one thing I want to say now the case is closed. I'll probably reread this thread tomorrow and respond to anything else I want to then

.

I'm very sorry for holding up court proceedings as much as I did. The reason that the case took a week was really my fault -- everyone else was very quick to respond to the questions and points. Obviously, there's reason for these delays -- the arguments were long and complex -- and I don't regret taking the time I did, but I apologize to the court for being the primary delaying party. For all it's worth, I do believe the organization-less system is a step in the right direction -- it needs some work, and perhaps a solid middle ground can be found, but I don't see it as a failure.

On a totally separate note -- since the top thread is closed for comments, I'll unofficially reply to Skywalker's last message here -- this isn't anything that needs to be brought in front of the court anyway.

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
I just want to say now that I'm angry that adaMada has managed to ignore every single one of my posts. He has repeated the argument that I have REPEATEDLY said that a) I agree with and b) is irrelevent.

skywalker,
I'm very sorry you feel that way, and in no means meant to either ignore or offend you. Quite simply, I felt that I'd already responded to the issue in the second half of this post. I felt that this post replied to your point – that the veto could’ve been taken without Arnelos – so I didn't take the time to comment. That was unwise, and I should've responded indicating that my response was already posted before I made my closing statement. As to why I kept arguing the Real Life issue, which you did agree with -- the court asked questions on it, and as long as they're making the decision (which hinges upon the court recognizing what you and I have), I was obliged to answer and argue along those lines. The fact that two separate justices asked about it meant (to me, at least) that it was even more crucial that I address the issue well.
Anyway, I apologize for the misunderstanding. At one point I did plan to post a message saying that my reply was basically in that post above, but never got around to it in my haste to get the closing argument out the door and into the court. Again, my apologies.

-- adaMada

MJW · January 14, 2003, 00:15

I am just happy that my job is done

Meshelic · January 14, 2003, 05:48

Quote:

Originally posted by adaMada

I'm very sorry for holding up court proceedings as much as I did. The reason that the case took a week was really my fault -- everyone else was very quick to respond to the questions and points. Obviously, there's reason for these delays -- the arguments were long and complex -- and I don't regret taking the time I did, but I apologize to the court for being the primary delaying party. For all it's worth, I do believe the organization-less system is a step in the right direction -- it needs some work, and perhaps a solid middle ground can be found, but I don't see it as a failure.-- adaMada

Well, for me personally it wasn't the amount of time it took holding up the proceedings (although I had nothing to do with the Case itself, except as an observer), so the delay was not noticeable to me. Maybe it was more noticeable to the other participants, but that wasn't why I started this thread.

I mostly opposed the proceedings of the Case, and partially the subject matter. It seemed like a less civilized Case than the others, although I understand that the Judges were trying out a new free-form type of court session.

Meshelic

Panag · January 14, 2003, 07:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic
Check out this embarrassing Court Case right here.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=73076

I'll begin by saying that upon reading this thread, I am continously annoyed by this case as it keeps going. To begin with, I don't believe it should have even been brought to the Court, is a waste of time even for the plaintiffs, though especially the Judges who have to watch the Plaintiffs make a mockery of the Court and it's system.

That the only reason this case is in existence is because of a minor fault in the Constitution that a Cabinet Veto must take place within 72 hours of the law they vetoed. In reality, the Veto took place so shortly after the time limit that it really should not even have been challenged.
There are those who would seek the Constitution followed to the letter, even the faulty portions of it like this. They are also the same people who do not wish to compromise their position by agreeing that REAL LIFE takes PRECEDENCE over ANYTHING that happens in this game.

Might I point out that if the NewCon REALLY took precedence over everything in the minds of those here, even really life matters, than many of us in real life could be without jobs, isolated from our families, and simply forum-junkies doing nothing but letting our eyes rot from the electrons in our monitors.

Who cares if the Veto was missed by a couple hours, or even longer? Does it really matter?

Might I also point out that this Court Case #9 has been the most unorthodox (not not the person, the WORD) and embarrasing case in the history of 'poly.

The Judges and Defendants have had to wait patiently while Plaintiffs without much of a case argue amongst themselves, hurl insults, and make a mockery of the Court.

I mean seriously folks, remember Reddawg vs. Mr Orange? That was a serious case, one that was carried out in an orderly manner, with both sides intelligently speaking their case, and not resorting to personal attacks, spam posts, or otherwise off-topic statements. Unlike #9. There is no respect for the Court in this latest case, not much that I've seen anyways.

Enough of my rant. I will stand outside the Great Courthouse and start a picket line. I will proudly hang a sign above my head that proudly states in fine, bold letters:

"LEAVE THE CABINET ALONE!"

Who is with me?

Meshelic

hi ,

thanks Meshelic

have a nice day

civman2000 · January 14, 2003, 14:06

Quote:

In that Con. because it had the "9th amendement"

That makes no sense at all

GodKing · January 14, 2003, 14:54

Thanks for this thread.

GK

MJW · January 14, 2003, 19:27

The ninth amendment says people have some rights that are not sated in the US con.

Edit: I cross posted in my head an the argument was ment to be somewhere else...

civman2000 · January 15, 2003, 14:36

Togas has said that the vote is tied! This is how i think the voting is going:
Veto is valid: Nimitz (I'm certain), Sheik?
Veto is invalid: Togas (I'm VERY certain), jdjdjd?
Abstain: GodKing?

adaMada · January 15, 2003, 17:09

civman2000,
Without commenting on who you think's voted each way -- very interesting thoughts, but I'd rather not speak much at all until the vote's back -- I'd just like to point out that Togas implied (or it seems that he did to me) that the vote was split but not tied by saying that they'd post a minority/majority decision if they couldn't reach some sort of conclusion amoungst themselves.

Just thought I'd point it out -- I'm not really sure, might be wrong

.

-- adaMada

joncnunn · January 15, 2003, 17:48

Yes, Togas said that there would be a majority and minory decision if they couldn't reach an agreement.

Perhaps it's a 3-2 with GodKing on the winning side?

GodKing · January 15, 2003, 18:23

That is correct - the vote came out 3-2, but on each side there were people that saw the other position. We will be discussing this over the next day or so, and if people change their mind.. well, so be it. I was the last to vote, and I didn't know that everybody else had voted and that it was a tie... I almost did abstain.

civman2000 · January 15, 2003, 18:34

Oops, you're right. Now my prediction, after looking through the thread again (1-5 is a measure of how certain i am):
Veto is valid: Nimitz (3), GodKing (2), jdjdjd (2)
Veto is invalid: Togas (5), Sheik (1)

Togas · January 15, 2003, 18:40

Quote:

Originally posted by civman2000
Oops, you're right. Now my prediction, after looking through the thread again (1-5 is a measure of how certain i am):
Veto is valid: Nimitz (3), GodKing (2), jdjdjd (2)
Veto is invalid: Togas (5), Sheik (1)

I'd like to ask that the Judges NOT reveal how we're split until the final decision comes out ... as this sort of speculation is just too fun to read, and I don't want to spoil any possible debates.

I'm curious to read what other observers think the vote might be.

--Togas

adaMada · January 15, 2003, 18:59

I'm following this discussion with a good deal of interest as well -- it's facinating

.

civman -- on the measure of how sure you are. Is 1 the most sure and 5 the least, or vice versa?

-- adaMada

Arnelos · January 15, 2003, 22:24

Togas,

As for "other observers", I sure hope you voted for the veto being invalid

Because if you didn't, I may just run for President again in 2 terms just so I don't re-appoint you to the Court the second time around!

(and that's from the President whose veto would be rescinded!)

Spiffor · January 15, 2003, 22:39

Arnelos :
Didn't your character in the RP team just die ?

Arnelos · January 15, 2003, 22:54

No clue... my ISP was acting up A LOT over the past few days and I haven't been visiting the RP forum a lot in the past few days. It's been the most I could do with my horrible internet connection to just load up a few election thread pages (3-4 minutes a piece...).

GeneralTacticus · January 15, 2003, 22:58

Did he? If he did, he made no requests for funeral aragements, which is somewhat suspicious.

EDIT: crossposted.

Togas · January 16, 2003, 01:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos
I sure hope you voted for the veto being invalid

Because if you didn't, I may just run for President again in 2 terms just so I don't re-appoint you to the Court the second time around!

Would you do the same for any of the other Judges who are up for reappointment this term? Such a "threat" might stir things up a little.

If The Court stays this busy and this influential, we may start seeing purely political appointments to the Court and appointment hearings for new Judges by the Senate ... maybe the Senate can grill the nominee before voting ... ask them how they would decide certain "hot topic" issues, bring out their dirty laundry, ask them if they'd over turn Roe v. Wade, etc.

Fun times, indeed.

--Togas

E_T · January 16, 2003, 03:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Togas

Would you do the same for any of the other Judges who are up for reappointment this term? Such a "threat" might stir things up a little.

If The Court stays this busy and this influential, we may start seeing purely political appointments to the Court and appointment hearings for new Judges by the Senate ... maybe the Senate can grill the nominee before voting ... ask them how they would decide certain "hot topic" issues, bring out their dirty laundry, ask them if they'd over turn Roe v. Wade, etc.

Fun times, indeed.

--Togas

/me askes the Court Nomenee if he has ever used Banack?

civman2000 · January 16, 2003, 14:32

5 means the most certain.

Nimitz · January 16, 2003, 18:08

Any one want to take any last minuet guesses on who voted what?

adaMada · January 16, 2003, 18:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Togas

Would you do the same for any of the other Judges who are up for reappointment this term? Such a "threat" might stir things up a little.

If The Court stays this busy and this influential, we may start seeing purely political appointments to the Court and appointment hearings for new Judges by the Senate ... maybe the Senate can grill the nominee before voting ... ask them how they would decide certain "hot topic" issues, bring out their dirty laundry, ask them if they'd over turn Roe v. Wade, etc.

Fun times, indeed.

--Togas

Considering how Dull the in-game stuff's getting -- it could provide a welcome distraction

. Obviously, it'd take some integrity away from the court, but it'd make things a lotta fun

.

-- adaMada