Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

In game mechanics, most members of Congress are swayed into supporting political positions based on Popular Opinion Bias, while most members of the Supreme Court are swayed into supporting political positions based on Consitutional Bias. C+ and L+ people are immune to this sort of Bias however. A C+ person will always vote C+, while a L+ person will always vote L+.

...Which is rather strange when a Gay Marriage proposition gets 100% of the vote, only to get overturned by Congress by the C+ caucus vote. It's less disturbing when an L+ judge interpret the 2nd Amendment to state that it protects the rights of "militias" (i.e, the military) to own guns, because at least they are reading the Consitution. But if we introduce new amendments to the Consitution, then it becomes more strained to imagine C+ and L+ judges make strange interpretions of these amendments to back their ideology and defeat the entire purpose of the amendments in question.

So, should C+ and L+ people ignore the effects of Popular Opinion and Consituional Bias? Or should their immunity be stripped?

[Jonathan S. Fox]

If a strongly-worded Constitutional Amendment were put into place that "locked" an issue, I think the Supreme Court wouldn't change that, even if the judges have a strong personal view on the matter. The new amendment would just be too firm and unambiguous. But aside from that, I like having the C+ and L+ people being "principled" stalwarts that must be removed from office to get them to stop advocating their opinions. It may not be truly realistic, but it gives a peace of mind when you put L+ people into office, and a tension when C+ come into power, knowing they'll never budge, no matter what.