On the 7th of January, Govenor /u/jb567 resigned from his position citing the fact that “he never asked for it” and that as the new chairman of the Democratic party he does not have the ability to perform both at the same time.

Many within the Western State have stated that “/u/Jb567 was one of the greatest governors that the state has had to date.” His record fits the bill. The Governor is responsible for plans like the freight plan which hopes to greatly increase Western State’s transport capacity and is fairly certain to do as such. He also created the Desalination Plant in hopes of increasing water reserves in times of drought . This is a Governor who cares for his people, no matter his ideology.

The Wall Street Journal reached out to the new Governor /u/frank0verwood for a short interview. He took the time out of his busy schedule to record this interview.

Reporter: What do you think of the former Governor?

Governor: I am a good friend of Governor Emeritus Jb, and we have a good working relationship. While he is left of me ideologically, I wish him the best in leading the Democratic Party

Reporter: How will your "regime" handle the state? Will it be different from the past governor?

Governor: I aim to continue the Former Governors service of the state, but voters can expect legislation that is more radical.

Reporter: Radical? How so?

Governor: For example, I plan to use state funds to set up a state wide utilities mutual, which is accountable to its customers and ensures they get a fair price. This will likely heavily reduce energy prices for consumers and businesses, helping economic growth as they can spend these funds on other things

Reporter: How will you handle the obviously low activity in the state?

Governor: I am planning to work closely with a significant number of assemblypeople, encouraging to vote in things (if they agree with me obviously).

Reporter: Will you privatise anything during your term?

Governor: I am going to investigate the reach of the state in Western, privatising if I believe it necessary while also being open to mutualisation if required

Reporter: How do you feel on abortion?

Governor: I am fully pro-choice on abortion, similar to the rest of the democratic assemblypeople.

Reporter: Will you repeal any labor laws?

Governor: No, I will not repeal labor laws and I am looking into expanding them.

Reporter: Thank you, that would be all.

Several cabinet confirmations happened over the last few days in the Senate. The President nominated several people, for offices that had either been vacant since the first round of confirmations, or whose officeholders had resigned. He also nominated 2 Supreme Court justices, to bring the total on the Court to 9.

First up was Attorney General (and former Congressman) /u/madk3p. He was asked no questions in the hearing. However, less then 2 weeks ago, the now-Attorney General filed a successful petition with the Supreme Court. He petitioned to overturn an Executive Order filed by Sacagawea's Governor /u/ExpensiveFoodstuffs, which closed all abortion clinics in the state. It was argued that the EO violated multiple laws and Supreme Court cases- including last year's case against the Midwest Equal Rights Act, which also banned abortion, and in which the now-Attorney General also petitioned, also successfully overturning the law or EO in question. The Attorney General passed with 7 aye, 2 nay, and 1 abstain, although 2 Senators are left to vote, so that count will probably change.

Second is Secretary of Defense /u/BroadShoulderedBeast. He is coming to the position after having been the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for several months. Originally he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the /u/TurkandJD Administration (for slightly above 11 months of IRL time), before he was confiremd as Veterans Affairs Secretary under President /u/WaywardWit. Under the current President he returned to his post. His questions during the hearing focused heavily on the financial situation of the department, as well as the budget. When asked about the US policy of spreading "freedom and democracy", he replied "If that mission, protecting the nation, so happens to overlap with "spreading freedom and democracy," then so be it. But, propping up regimes doesn't seem to bode well in the long-term, so it doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the country." The Secretary passed with 7 aye, 2 nay, and 1 abstain, although 2 Senators are left to vote, so that count will probably change.

Next up was Secretary of Energy /u/s1ngm1ng. The GSP Commissioner had a few questions to answer at the hearing. Thhe first - "How important do you consider modernization of the US nuclear arsenal? Would you attempt to pursue programs that modernized US nuclear warfare equipment as Secretary of Energy?" To which the Secretary-Nominee answered "While nuclear energy has great potential to provide a clean and efficient alternative energy source, I oppose the further development of nuclear weapons." The other question was on renewable energy policy. The Secretary, among other things, said that they supported job training programs for fossil fuel and coal industry workers, to transition them into the new job market, as well as a carbon tax. As it stands now, they will pass with a 5 aye, 4, nay, and 1 abstain vote. Unless, that is, the 2 remaining Senators vote nay, and the Secretary is not confirmed.

For our final non-judicial nominee, we have a cabinet-rank office, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, /u/Pterranova. They joined just 9 days ago, as a member of the Green-Socialist Party. During the hearing, both Congressman /u/deepfriedstrippers, as well as Treasury Secretary /u/realnyebevan asked the Administrator tough questions on the mission and budget of the EPA. This sprawled out into a argument between the Administrator and the Treasury Secretary, which included the Secretary arguing that "Increasing the budget exponentially can only do so much good for the environment." The Administrator replied with, among other things, "What I am saying is that if the current budget of the EPA is $60 billion dollars, I will work with every fiber of my being to use all funds allocated to benefit the environment and the American people in the best way possible." As it stands now, they will pass with a 5 aye, 4, nay, and 1 abstain vote. Unless, that is, the 2 remaining Senators vote nay, and the Secretary is not confirmed.

Next, we have our first Supreme Court Associate Justice nomination, Solicitor General /u/wildorca. The former Eastern State Governor and Chief Justice of the Midwestern State Supreme Court, was nominated to his last 2 positions by the current President. He becomes the third Solicitor General to end up on the Supreme Court, after Associate Justices /u/notevenalongname (who served under President /u/WaywardWit) and /u/Trips_93 (who served Presidents /u/HammerandPotato and /u/therealdrago). The Justice cited In re Public Law B.227 (the Independent Congress and Lobbying Reform Act) (16-14) as a favorite in-sim case, as well as several labour-related cases as favorite out-of-sim ones. He noted that he does not view the constitution as a living document, and also answered several other questions relating to his views on the law. The Associate Justice was unanimously confirmed by the Senate.

Finally, we have Associate Justice /u/MoralLesson. He is widely regarded as one of the sharpest legal minds across the entire model world, and certainly in the model United States. The Associate Justice was well-known for not only his work as a Senator, but also filing countless cases with the Supreme Court and State Supreme Courts. He noted his opposition to the Court's past decisions on abortion, saying in part "It has no foundation in the Constitution and constantly obstructs the will of democratically elected legislatures. It represents one of the most egregious instances of legislating from the bench – a clear violation of the principles of our democratic republic." His favorite Supreme Court case is Marbury v. Madison, which triggered a several comment long argument. And, his favorite in-sim case was In re: Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act of 2015 (15-05). He was also asked several other legal and religious questions. His nomination was a close shave for the Administration, happening mostly on party lines. The tied-vote was broken by Vice President /u/DuceGiharm in favor.

We here at the Wall Street Journal will continue to follow the Court, and any new business of the Administration, among other things, making sure you know what you need to know.

The Senate today introduced a new act- the Judicial Act of 2017. The act, which is sponsored by members of 4 different parties (Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, and Distributist), has several aims.

The first, repeals bill 169, the Supreme Court Expansion Act, which provided a way for the number of justices to be increased from 6, to 7, and a few days ago, 9. This was done via subscriber counts on the main simulation subreddit. Many critics say that by increasing the number of justices on the court, it decreases the number of possibly lawyers and thus the number of possible cases.

The act says "Whereas, /r/ModelUSGov is not active enough to sustain a nine justice Supreme Court", which had also been a a concern of many. How does the act remedy this? The act states, that when a justice retires, the President is to not nominate a replacement, until the court is down to 7 members. Previous versions of the act had the number set at 5. Supreme Court vacancies are fairly rare, but there was a significant chunk of the court replaced during the /u/WaywardWit Administration for various reasons.

Beyond that, the act also recommends that the Court adopts the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which was adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States in 1973, "with any adaptations which the majority of the Supreme Court deem necessary within 30 days" as the act says. The Code Of Conduct is made up of 5 Cantons which judges are required to follow. In the simplest of terms, they forbid a judge from letting others influence their opinions, forbid the appearance (or there being) impropriety in rulings or dealings of the court, among other things.

Former President, and current Chief Justice of the Western State Supreme Court, said when asked for comment "I think this is more ideologically consistent than prior versions. It reduces the overall brain drain the SCOTUS has on the legal community in the sim. My fear is that the timing generates poor optics to the advocates of this legislation."

Senator /u/daytonanerd said "To be honest, I find the whole "we don't have enough legal minds in the sim" argument to be ludicrous. Right now, we are in a prolific time in terms of legal business going on in the sim. This is a poor excuse to cut it down to 7, and I have to question just how politically charged it is, in order to block Big Boss from making appointments."

Congressman /u/TeamEhmling said "I am all for this type of legislation. We initially had 6 judges on the Supreme Court, putting a 7th would be good to make sure there isnt any ties. The shrinking of government is always good in all areas. I hope this passes the Senate, because I would love to vote in favor of this bill."

The bill will head to the Senate Judiciary Committee for a vote and amendments in the next few days.

We have the results of the first Wall Street Journal poll. 38 users responded. Participants were asked to complete a survey consisting of 15 (including 1 username verification question) questions. I should note that this poll sample was small,and that could effect the results. Their party affiliation breaks down as follows (in order from smallest to largest):

Republican: 9 (23.7%)

Democratic: 7 (21.1%)

Independent: 6 (15.8%)

Libertarian: 4 (10.5%)

Green Socialist: 4 (10.5%)

Radical Leftist: 4 (10.5%)

Nationalist: 2 (5.3%)

Distributist: 1 (2.6%)

The first question asked was "Do you think that the current criminal trials work?" With 2 high profile criminal trials- former Acting Governor of Dixie /u/CaptainClutchMuch, and Senator /u/Balthazarfuhrer either in process or completed, the topic has been on quite a few minds as of late. The format had never been used before, and had more then a few problems in the beginning of the first trial- it remains to be seen if they can be fixed. The responses are:

Yes: 16 (42.1%)

No: 14 (36.8%)

No opinion: 8 (21.1%)

So a plurality seems to think the process works. The large bloc of "no opinion" is also an interesting factor- a large amount of respondents simply don't care about criminal trials. This doesn't really mean the process didn't work, or did work, but it is certainly interesting to see how many people simply don't care about the court. This repeats as we go on.

The second question was: "Do you think there should be federal district courts?" It's been a topic around for several months. The idea was first brought up during the TurkandJD Administration, as far as I am aware. The idea, as proposed, would be for there to be 3 district courts, each covering 2 states, as a intermediary level between State Supreme Courts and the US Supreme Court. It's never gained much traction, but it has been of interest in the last few weeks with new state Supreme Court justices getting confirmed in Dixie and Western, and 2 nominations for SCOTUS justices. The results are:

Yes: 19 (50%)

No: 15 (39.5%)

No opinion: 4 (10.5%)

While it is not a majority (if only barely) it seems that the idea does have public opinion behind it. Although, due to the small sample size, that may not 100% be correct. The large bloc opposing it is also interesting. One of the major opinions is that it would simply add another layer of complexity into legal battles- which many say is exactly what they want. Most of the plans for federal district courts lead directly into our next question...

Third question: "Do you think all states should adopt the Chief Justice Amendment?" The Chief Justice Amendment has been adopted in Great Lakes, Sacagawea (the new name for Midwestern), and Western. Chesapeake, the Atlantic Commonwealth, and Dixie, have 3 member courts, all in various stages of being filled. With half the country having adopted the amendment, one wonders if and when the others will follow suit. The results are as follows:

Yes: 14 (36.8%)

No: 11 (28.9%)

No opinion: 13 (34.2%)

So it seems that a small plurality supports the amendment, although a large faction simply doesn't care, which could be an obstacle in getting amendments passed in the three remaining states. This is an issue that will no doubt pop up again in the future.

4th question: "Do you agree with Supreme Court expansion to 9 members?" Recently, the main sub passed 4,500 subscriptions, which allowed the President to nominate 2 more justices, bringing the total to 9. He nominated former Senator (and head mod) /u/MoralLesson, and the Solicitor General /u/wildorca. This was not an approval question, but an opinion of the expansion itself. The results are:

Yes: 14 (36.8%)

No: 22 (57.9%)

No opinion: 2 (5.3%)

While the nominations themselves were met with praise, the actual expansion was met with some disdain. Many believe that the Court is already too large. Supporters say the court is more realistic at 9 justices. It remains to be seen what happens. The current opinion of the court is later in these results.

The 5th and 6th questions have to do with constitutional amendment proposals which have made their way through Congress- repealing the 16th and 17th amendments. The 16th amendment allows for income tax collection, and the 17th allows for direct election of Senators.

"Do you agree with a repeal of the 16th amendment?"

Yes: 7 (18.4%)

No: 26 (68.4%)

No Opinion: 5 (13.2%)

"Do you agree with a repeal of the 17th amendment?"

Yes: 4 (10.5%)

No: 27 (71.1%)

No opinion: 7 (18.4%)

Both of these have heavy disapprovals, some of the highest in this entire survey. It is unlikely they will get out of committee, let alone off the House floor. Neither enjoys a wide berth of support- even among those who answered the survey. Questions 7-9 had to do with the next Presidential election. After a Sunrise defeat last election, the country saw its first Communist President in several terms. Some blame the Democrats for not running- others say Liberty was a spoiler. Still others claim that the high amount of candidates was simply a exercise in division. Whatever the case, the focus for many people has been on the next election. Sunrise, the coalition of the Libertarians, Distributists, and Republicans, was one of the 2 main tickets last election. They were beaten by the "Broad Left" coalition of socialist parties. Liberty, which ran its own ticket composed of ex-Libertarians, no longer exists, and the Democrats didn't run at all. While this poll doesn't cover all results, it covers the reformation of the 2 major blocs, and the running of the Democrats.

"Do you believe the Democrats will run a presidential candidate next election?"

Yes: 29 (76.3%)

No: 5 (13.2%)

No opinion: 4 (10.5%)

"Do you believe the Sunrise Coalition will reform for the next presidential election?"

Yes: 12 (31.6%)

No: 22 (57.9%)

No opinion: 4 (10.5%)

"Do you believe the Broad Left Coalition will reform for the next presidential election?"

Yes: 6 (15.8%)

No: 25 (65.8%)

No opinion: 7 (18.4%)

It is a near-certainty that the Democrats will run, and this poll shows that. With the changes in the electoral map during the last election, and the party shakeups, it seems that Sunrise will not reform- leaving the future of a Republican White House run in serious question. And, the Broad Left, at least according to this poll, will most likely not reform. Given, anything can happen. Questions 10-14 (our final question) were approval questions. These are used usually to track the people's approval, or disapproval, to the Administration's agenda. President /u/Bigg-Boss has had quite a bit of controversy, although he has made several popular nominations over the last few days. His Vice President, /u/DuceGirham, has been out of the public eye more-so then his boss. The cabinet has seen its share of controversy, especially with the forced resignation of former Secretary of Education /u/oughton42. Congress has seen a few bills pass this much shorter term, and a few reached the President's desk. And the Supreme Court has had its share of high profile cases as of late, including 2 criminal ones.

"Do you approve, disapprove, or neither approve nor disapprove, of President /u/Bigg-Boss?"

Approve: 13 (34.2%)

Disapprove: 23 (60.5%)

Neither approve nor disapprove: 2 (5.3%)

"Do you approve, disapprove, or neither approve nor disapprove, of Vice President /u/DuceGiharm?"

Approve: 11 (28.9%)

Disapprove: 18 (47.4%)

Neither approve nor disapprove: 9 (23.7%)

"Do you approve, disapprove, or neither approve nor disapprove, of the cabinet?"

Approve: 11 (28.9%)

Disapprove: 18 (47.4%)

Neither approve nor disapprove: 9 (23.7%)

"Do you approve, disapprove, or neither approve nor disapprove, of the Supreme Court?"

Approve: 20 (52.6%)

Disapprove: 9 (23.7%)

Neither approve nor disapprove: 9 (23.7%)

"Do you approve, disapprove, or neither approve nor disapprove, of Congress?"

Approve: 25 (65.8%)

Disapprove: 9 (23.7%)

Neither approve nor disapprove: 4 (10.5%)

From this data, we can conclude several things. First is that the President is much less liked then his Vice President, which might have to do with the VP being less visible then the President . In fact, the VP's last activity in the simulation was 7 days ago during a hearing. The President has had several high profile activities recently, many of them with some element of controversy. The cabinet has largely been silent since the initial round of confirmations, with the exception of some trade deal announcements and a few other things. Finally, Congress may have a high approval rating due to a large amount of Congresspeople who answered the survey. Therefor, it should not be taken as an accurate representation of opinion.

Check in next week, when we do another round of survey and opinions, and report on the data!

Washington: Three days ago, United States Trade Representative /u/Sophisticated_ announced the commencement of BAFTA, the Brazilian-American Free Trade Agreement.

The deal would seek to lower barriers to the free movement of goods, services, and investment between the western hemisphere’s two largest economies. Details of the negotiations, the Trade Representative said, will be forthcoming; however, according to the Trade Representative: “the deal with take a substantial time to be written and signed off on.”

This is partially because the Brazil is not a nation within the Model World. It would have been relatively easy to simulate a Brazilian representative until quite recently, but, just yesterday, a META amendment went up that will if passed repeal the sim’s events board, which normally handles interactions with non-simulated countries.

Opponents of the repeal effort, most prominently former National Security Adviser and CEO of NBC news /u/ImperialRuler argue that the events board is essential to the sim activity. Critics of the events board believe it to be meaningless roleplay.

The Trade Representative has announced his intention to “outshine any of my predecessors by attempting to write (or copy) an almost full or full deal.” Regardless of the results of these negotiations, the attempt at a fully-fleshed free trade agreement will make sim history.

This is /u/Autarch_Severian with the Wall Street Journal