Public Review of the New Article Three Draft

[thekerbal]

@DannyboyJurist

No, that clogs up the docket with bullshit and annoys me. You shouldn’t just be able to ask the SC any random hypothetical you want at any time. Sustain an injury in fact or demonstrate you will, nerd

That is ex parte though and therefore doesn’t require an injury

[DannyboyJurist]

Ex parte cases are almost unilaterally a waste of our resources that allow people to, at any moment, throw any bullshit hypothetical they want up. They don’t need to exist

[DannyboyJurist]

@1superchris2

it’s up to congress at that point to fix via impeaching you

Hoe’s mad

[DannyboyJurist]

You don’t have to go through the DC??? The SC still has original jurisdiction, you just need to actually demonstrate you sustain or will sustain an injury.

[1superchris2]

Sorry was a tiny bit angry about something unrelated.

[Clonemep]

@DannyboyJurist

throw any bullshit hypothetical they want up. They don’t need to exist

Yes, it should exist. Firestone is crazy and sometimes these hypothetical questions need answering. If they’re just stupid then deny the writ. But don’t just default deny them.

[thekerbal]

You haven’t prescribed that ex parte SC cases require an injury, so one can still petition for judicial review without injury

[DannyboyJurist]

kerbal, I don’t know how to tell you this, but judicial review is an inherent power of the SC and doesn’t require a special petition. It is a power we can use when we want whenever we determine it necessary. It is that way in the current Constitution, it will be that way in this new one.

[thekerbal]

[…] In the aforementioned cases of judicial review, the Supreme Court must have been formally petitioned by an external entity to the court to hear the judicial review and execute powers aforementioned. […]

C.III.II

a) […] A petition for judicial review may be filed by any person.

i) Such a review shall be treated like a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Rule 10 of the Rules of General Procedure

I think we’ve had this argument several times already but I am a textualist and these parts of the law clearly prescribe that exercising judicial review is inherently separate from normal cert writs and must be explicitly petitioned for. Regardless of that, it’s not relevant to what I stated. Your proposed C.III does not prohibit ex parte petitions for judicial review, hence they are still valid, hence they require no injury, hence people can still “ask questions” to the SC. Whether this is good or not is a different question, but you have not prescribed any differently

note: just checked it again and now reference to ‘before the District Court’ has been added. Still, this is an open discussion and subject to debate

[1superchris2]

Would be better to write it in stone tbh

[DannyboyJurist]

@thekerbal

note: just checked it again and now reference to ‘before the District Court’ has been added. Still, this is an open discussion and subject to debate

@1superchris2

Would be better to write it in stone tbh

DC line aded afterwards. And the SC section has the line “The Supreme Court of Firestone exclusively maintains the power of judicial nullification in any and all matters that may require it.” So that is certainly an improvement from the current text. Just to be sure, I’ll add a line onto this like “no specific petition shall be required to exercise this power” or whatever.

[thekerbal]

We need to see whether ex parte petitions should still be permissible. That’s not clearcut

[DannyboyJurist]

They aren’t now