SPC vs. Atlasia

[Purple State]

As some preliminary questions from the CJ, even though this isn't in the cert, I'm going to ask:

1) How does the 22nd amendment impact this case?
2) What does the statute mean when it says that the places covered by "buildings and establishments open to the public?"  Does this mean every federal/regional/private place that is commonly open to the public?  Does it mean something even broader than that?  Or something more narrow?  What I'm getting at is what is the "line" in application.
3) Am I reading correctly that the only person who can be punished for an act of smoking is the person smoking, not the business - in that case, Clause 4 makes no sense, but this question may be just a question along my usual lines of "the Senate doesn't know what the f-ck its doing legislative drafting question", not anything unconstitutional.

For Clause 4, I believe the legislation is saying that people can smoke is those sorts of facilities or establishments. The wording is a bit non-parallel but that seems to be what it means.

[Purple State]

As some preliminary questions from the CJ, even though this isn't in the cert, I'm going to ask:

1) How does the 22nd amendment impact this case?
2) What does the statute mean when it says that the places covered by "buildings and establishments open to the public?"  Does this mean every federal/regional/private place that is commonly open to the public?  Does it mean something even broader than that?  Or something more narrow?  What I'm getting at is what is the "line" in application.
3) Am I reading correctly that the only person who can be punished for an act of smoking is the person smoking, not the business - in that case, Clause 4 makes no sense, but this question may be just a question along my usual lines of "the Senate doesn't know what the f-ck its doing legislative drafting question", not anything unconstitutional.

For Clause 4, I believe the legislation is saying that people can smoke is those sorts of facilities or establishments. The wording is a bit non-parallel but that seems to be what it means.

I'm not around here to debate legislation - but that clause is almost irrelevant.  In fact, the effect of the whole legislation is to push individuals to create private clubs where people smoke. 

Hey, if it's the Senate's prerogative to make modern opium dens, who am I to stop them.

[Purple State]

From the desk of C.J. Sam Spade:

I will be concurring in the judgment of the Court and probably joining in Parts II-IV of the opinion (haven't decided for certain yet).

That concurrence should be published sometime this weekend (when I have the time) and might include completely separate reasoning on the clauses in question, but will definitely contain a dissenting view on Part I.

Thanks.

I tend to agree with Sam here that Part I doesn't pass legal..."mustard"?

[Purple State]

I think we could play the "conflict of interest" game for just about every person who is a justice and every person who could become a Justice, especially considering how long others have been around. I'm from the Pacific, was I biased in the Ebowed case by accepting his case? I personally oppose Giovanni. Was I biased in my judging over the Giovanni case in December? Not to mention that all three of us have made political comments related to Atlasian matters up down and sideways.

Also, the court reserves our ability to analyze bills and constitutional conflicts however we see fit, within reason. There's little reason to limit ourselves to only what certain people say, especially when that could lead to some rather unfortunate circumstances where someone not knowing the constitution very well argues something when we, as Justices, know there is objectively better rationale to be found elsewhere. We play fair, SPC.

You also neglected to answer my question when I posed it to you. I spent a great deal of time coming up with my reasoning and spent alot of time trying to determine what "demonstrations" could reasonably mean. If you don't like it, SPC, I'm sorry, but it is what it is. Trying to accuse the court of some weird political or personal bias is not only completely unwarranted and sort of insulting, but an accusation which could probably be leveled against 85% of prospective Justices considering Atlasia's environment.

Edit: I'd also like to mention the obvious fact that all three of us agreed it was constitutional. Spade and I & Opebo simply disagreed on the reasoning for how to declare it constitutional. So it's kind of silly to try some game attacking me.

Dear lord... A well reasoned and calm argument by Marokai? The fancy robe must be getting to him.

[Purple State]

I think we could play the "conflict of interest" game for just about every person who is a justice and every person who could become a Justice, especially considering how long others have been around.

No, but you should have definitely recused yourself from my case considering the clear conflict of interest there.

Of course I wouldn't expect something so mature from you.

Yawn.

If I "recused" myself from writing stories that promote things I support or harm things that I dislike, I would be a fairly inactive GM.

A symptom of the size of this game: active players tend to have been involved in a lot of things. Marokai can't recuse himself from half the cases because he served on the Senate for a fairly long time and was a part of the most active Senates in recent memory.

Play the game. Stop letting the game play you.

[Purple State]

's for Sam for that opinion.