Freedom of Expression Amendment

If you have an issue with the law that provoke our ruling, I suggest you take it up with the Regional Assembly, because crying to the Court and whining about how you would have ruled had you been in our place is less than worthless.
 
Blue Wolf II:
If you have an issue with the law that provoke our ruling, I suggest you take it up with the Regional Assembly, because crying to the Court and whining about how you would have ruled had you been in our place is less than worthless.
Click to expand...
Oh, ex-x-x-x-x-c-u-s-e me. I didn't know that this Court's decisions may never, ever, be criticized for faulty logic or any other reason because Blue Wolf sits on it.
 
Blue Wolf was not saying that a ruling cannot be criticized but stating that it is getting very tiring for the Justices to have to come up with a ruling on every matter that comes before the Court and then have to hear constant complaining that the ruling didn't come out as one had wanted it to. As long as I am Chief Justice the Court will rule on how the laws are written and not legislate from the Bench. The Court has in the past referred people back to the RA and will continue to do so when they want an interpretation of the law to change what the law actually means.

Given that I support the second version of this amendment and believe that it was needed before the Court ruled on the Coat of Arms. I also hope that is not the plan of certain people to bring this matter right back to the Courts if and when this passes.
 
Given how rare and important an amendment to the Bill of Rights is, I'm going to let this simmer for a couple more days for additional discussion and debate before motioning for a vote.
 
BW - I was about to say the same thing.

Regarding the amended version of Cormac's original proposal, I still do not feel it is necessary.

In my opinion, with this change the issue will come back before the courts once again. That seems like a waste of everyone's time and as such I cannot support the amended version of this bill.
 
I am confused. Where in the actual court decision does it say that images aren't speech? Could somebody point that out?
 
I motion to table this bill on the grounds of being mob irrationality unrelated to any actual incidences in fact because I don't see a reason for it and it would seem to indicate a more limited approach to the bill of rights than I am comfortable with.
 
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but motions to table don't exist in RA procedure. That said, nobody has even motioned to vote or seconded such a motion so it's not like this is going to a vote right away.
 
punk d:
BW - I was about to say the same thing.

Regarding the amended version of Cormac's original proposal, I still do not feel it is necessary.

In my opinion, with this change the issue will come back before the courts once again. That seems like a waste of everyone's time and as such I cannot support the amended version of this bill.
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous. The courts told us to go here to solve the problem, now the legislature is telling us not to go anywhere, because it could go back to the Court.
 
unibot:
punk d:
BW - I was about to say the same thing.

Regarding the amended version of Cormac's original proposal, I still do not feel it is necessary.

In my opinion, with this change the issue will come back before the courts once again. That seems like a waste of everyone's time and as such I cannot support the amended version of this bill.
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous. The courts told us to go here to solve the problem, now the legislature is telling us not to go anywhere, because it could go back to the Court.
Click to expand...
Unibot, if the courts asked you to address the problem in the coat of arms decision, then that is what should be addressed. Cormac has stated over and over again, that this bill is not to address that issue which is the issue the courts asked the legislature to address.

So I don't know what you find ridiculous about my statement? And if you read some of the comments by others about the issue coming back to the courts, you'll find that most believe that after the passage of this bill the issue will come back to the courts which as i said, wastes everyone's time. It's a waste because we'll be passing a bill that does nothing to address the issue the courts asked the legislature to address.

EDIT: Redundancy intentional.
 
Whether this proposal proceeds or not, an additional sentence in the Constitution may be needed to direct the Court to interpret the Constitution and Legal Code in the light of the broadest possible application of the Bill of Rights.

I'm highly concerned of ultra-literalism going amock; it's happened often enough that a course correction may be needed.
 
Speaker's hat on:

I am not accepting the motion to table. Given that this is a far-reaching proposal which deserves full debate, I will leave the debate open until 12th December and then move the proposal to vote, should it receive a second
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top