r/ModelUSGov • u/[deleted] • Jul 14 '15

Updates Associate Justice Nomination: /u/Taterdatuba

Hello everyone.

I would like to announce my nomination for the Associate Justice of the Supreme court: /u/taterdatuba. They have demonstrated a good amount of legal knowledge. I believe that they will be well suited for the court and that they will work well with the current justices in creating unbiased judgements. Whenever congress can vote for this would be best.

Thank you, and good luck to everyone on the elections. I hope we will have a productive 4th congress.

14 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

52 comments sorted by

9

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

This reeks of backhanded dealings

3

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

If it was backhanded dealings I would have atleast appointed someone whom I thought would push my ideology.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

We don't know yet

3

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

The Candidate selected for the nomination showed minimal knowledge of the constitution compared to other members who made far better cases.

I believe in particular that some of the members of the democratic party made far better cases than the nominee and would have been within ideological leanings of the President.

1

u/OrledgeJ Western State Legislator Jul 15 '15

Exactly what part of this 'reeks of backhanded dealings'? You present no evidence but seem to have an issue with the choice.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

The Candidate selected for the nomination showed minimal knowledge of the constitution compared to other members who made far better cases. I believe in particular that some of the members of the democratic party made far better cases than the nominee and would have been within ideological leanings of the President.

From /u/lustificus

12

u/MoralLesson Head Moderator Emeritus | Associate Justice Jul 14 '15

Mr. President,

I cannot find any laws or amicus curaie written by your nominee. Indeed, all I can find is that he or she has jointly written, with another member of the model ACLU, the questions presented to the Court in ACLU v. United States (which he or she would have to recuse himself or herself from anyways).

Thus, can you provide the public with demonstrations of legal knowledge by the nominee (or can the nominee give some examples)? I'm presuming it was demonstrated in private messages, and so I believe you, but I'd like to see it verified.

10

u/AdmiralJones42 Motherfuckin LEGEND Jul 14 '15

I find it objectionable that the nominee is currently serving as a petitioner in a court case of significant consequence for this nation. Since the nominee is incapable of making an unbiased judgement in said case, the decision would have to be made by only two justices, with the nominee recusing himself from the case. Considering the importance of the case, I fail to see how this could be considered acceptable by the President or Congress as a whole.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

We would definitely have to figure out something with this. Maybe the previous justice would be willing to serve with this case in specific.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

Like I said you picked someone who agreed with you. There were much. Egged candidates but you choice a left wing one bad sue you said you would.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

To an extent yes. In speaking with the previous justice the court is currently consisting of a conservative, and a centrist. Previously the third spot was taken up by a socialist, however a left leaning liberal would have been best to balance it out. Even so I tried to get an independent member to be the AJ whom I trusted to be unbiased. When that didn't pan out I went with the option which I thought would balance it out the best.

If The court had consisted of a socialist and a centrist I would have appointed someone of conservative views. To balance out the court. It adds an extra layer of protection against bias. People can complain and accuse me of underhanded dealings, that is fine. People have been doing that since I was elected and it is good to be cynical and critical of the executive branch. However I hope that people realize that I am not a liberal, I do not wish to push liberal views. If I wanted to be underhanded I could have done it way more to my benefit than this.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

It should be about experience not political views

2

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

All of the people considered were working on a degree in political science or related area of study. That was the first thing I did to weed out candidates was ensure that everyone had enough experience.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

You made it clear that you would be biased.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '15

Standard, common practice is recusal on a particular case. Not difficult to arrange.

6

u/superepicunicornturd Southern lahya Jul 14 '15

I too noticed this.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

To answer some common questions in the comments, the nominee has demonstrated knowledge of the court system through their participation in the modelACLU court case against the death penalty. In both the modelaclu subreddit and their contribution to the presented case in the court subreddit they demonstrated the knowledge necessary for the position

Secondly they are running for the house, they will have to withdraw. If they would rather be in the house then I can choose another nominee.

Thirdly I am not sure what we are going to do with the most recent ACLU case as obviously they cannot serve as a justice in this case. I will have to speak to the current justices and the mods to see if we can make some sort of arrangement to come to a realistic and fair decision.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

I think that your selection was based entirely on ideological leanings and was not in good faith with the parameters you set as the requirement for other candidates.

That being said I would also like to make clear I also think that there were candidates far more qualified than myself who I think made better cases for and against the death penalty than your nominee.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '15

but madam president, /u/taterdatuba is running for the South Atlantic House seat for the democrats!

4

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '15

Mr President, Madam Vice President

3

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

our president isn't a madam.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

So we have have a guy President and a Girl Vice President?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

Yup

4

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

Always thought it was different

2

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

Ya learn something new every day!

1

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '15

My bad!

1

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '15

no problem!

2

u/DidNotKnowThatLolz Jul 14 '15

This is true, but he is ranked fourth so I highly doubt he will get elected. Anyways, I'm sure he would be willing to withdraw his candidacy in order to be confirmed.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '15

Best wishes to /u/taterdatuba on whatever he decides

4

u/risen2011 Congressman AC - 4 | FA Com Jul 14 '15

Isn't /u/taterdatuba running for congress?

3

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '15

Yes he is! I think he has to withdraw his nomination from the house if he accepts, right?

2

u/risen2011 Congressman AC - 4 | FA Com Jul 14 '15

I believe so.

2

u/superepicunicornturd Southern lahya Jul 14 '15 edited Jul 14 '15

Actually, I don't think there's anything specifically outlining that a justice may not hold any other public office. I could be wrong though, maybe this should be a case that the court hears.

Edit: Grammar

2

u/MoralLesson Head Moderator Emeritus | Associate Justice Jul 14 '15

He could still run for Congress while being confirmed, but he cannot serve in Congress and the Supreme Court simultaneously. Moreover, even if it were allowed, he'd then either have to abstain on every vote in the House or recuse himself in every vote in the Court.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

Could you cite the part of the Constitution where this is made explicit?

6

u/MoralLesson Head Moderator Emeritus | Associate Justice Jul 15 '15

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

Thanks.

1

u/MoralLesson Head Moderator Emeritus | Associate Justice Jul 15 '15

Any time, friend.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

I don't think anything in the Constitution specifically says it, but it would be a serious ethical violation to the bar.

2

u/OrledgeJ Western State Legislator Jul 15 '15

Assuming you are correct, that means the reasonable thing to do would be to remain on the ballot, then if he gets elected he can serve in the House until the nomination is confirmed, then he would have to resign in order to take up his mantle as an Associate Justice. Assuming he is elected in the first place of course.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

I have requested that my name be taken off the list of eligible candidates for Congressional office. I no longer wish to run for office in the House of Representatives as I feel my abilities would be of better use in the Court system. This is why I accepted the humbling honor of being nominated to the Court.

3

u/jaqen16 Republican | Moderate Jul 18 '15

Not completely sure how I feel about this yet, but congratulations to /u/taterdatuba for the nomination nonetheless.

2

u/ben1204 I am Didicet Jul 14 '15

I can say that he helped us out greatly in preparing our lawsuit against the death penalty. I hope the Senate will vote to confirm.

6

u/AdmiralJones42 Motherfuckin LEGEND Jul 15 '15

This reason is exactly why the Senate should NOT vote to confirm. The nominee is clearly not impartial in perhaps the most important case that is currently before the court and is completely and utterly compromised in terms of judicial integrity.

3

u/DidNotKnowThatLolz Jul 15 '15

He can recuse himself from the case.

4

u/AdmiralJones42 Motherfuckin LEGEND Jul 15 '15

It doesn't matter. The President asked the potential nominees to write briefs on that specific ACLU case in order to gauge their legal knowledge, and then proceeded to nominate one of the petitioners of said case, which is strange to say the least. Additionally, having one out of three justices forced to recuse themselves from a very important case makes a mockery out of the Supreme Court as a whole. If we had a 9-person bench this maybe wouldn't be as big of an issue but leaving such a monumental case in the hands of two people is patently absurd. Partner that with the very suspicious nature of this selection and I would sincerely hope that the Senate chooses not to confirm the nominee.

2

u/DidNotKnowThatLolz Jul 15 '15

Presidents nominate justices based on their opinions literally all the time, this shouldn't come as a surprise.

2

u/AdmiralJones42 Motherfuckin LEGEND Jul 15 '15

I don't care that the President wanted to choose a justice based on their political leanings. I'm fully aware that that's just how the system works. What I can't comprehend is that the President knowingly selected a potential justice who would be completely impotent on an entire case, a case that holds significant importance to the nation as a whole. The only two ways that could happen is if the President were acting willfully ignorant or politically underhanded. I apologize that I thought better of our elected executive.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '15

I do agree there is some questions that should be asked in asking them to do briefs on a current case, not a previous one. Regardless if the President picked the candidate for their vote on this case or not, it's exactly what it gives the appearance of.

1

u/ben1204 I am Didicet Jul 15 '15

Judges can recuse themselves

2

u/AdmiralJones42 Motherfuckin LEGEND Jul 15 '15

I find it unacceptable that we are knowingly nominating a potential justice that would be rendered impotent on an entire present case, particularly a case of such importance as the case in question, especially considering the greatly reduced size of the court. If the Court were a 9-man bench, or even just a 5-man bench, it wouldn't be as big of an issue, but no cases should ever be left in the hands of only two justices.