johonmilla (D-NC) proposes VC Supreme Court Voting Explanation Act
Bill fails @johonmilla
Everything seems to result in a temporary Ban these days. 😑
As a Supreme Court justice, I always try to write at least a paragraph about my reasoning. If I were to change anything, I would have us all privately message the Chief Justice before we publicly announce our decision. He would then look at which conclusion most of the justices arrived at and then select one justice from among those in the majority to write a really good "majority opinion". He would reach out to any dissenting justices and offer them the chance to write a dissent. This guarantees that a well-written opinion is produced and we'll often get dissenting opinions that people will write because they care rather than because a bill required them to write it.
write it. (Got cut off)
This is a good idea. We could implement this
I also think people should be free to write concurring opinions if they choose.
Nay. I do this anyways, and the judges who do this explain the reasoning well enough for both sides
Nay, this is really unnecessary and most Justices put a paragraph why.
Some don't though. In the comment I'd literally says (im paraphrasing), "yes, no, or abstain will suffice". It is practice in the real Court to write an explanation after voting.
The "yes, no, abstaining will suffice" part was never used for anyones official ruling.
It was used in one thread in order to keep track of the rulings in one place in addition to each additional ruling.
That's just the thread for rulings... look at Supreme Court cases there's often a couple paragraphs detailing decisions
VC Supreme Court Voting Explanation Act
I. Voting in Supreme Court must be followed by a minimum of a paragraph consisting of five sentences.
a. This paragraph will give an explanation for their decision
II. Failure to fulfill the explanation will result in a temporary ban from the Supreme Court. This ban will last three court cases.