aggienaut | Court Minutes 06-10-25 (Reply)

   Okay that was so fun last week, I'm going to once again do a general summary of our Court meeting minutes, so you can all marvel at what an august body we are.

8:10 - We have quorum with five justices, but Justice Coady is running late so Vice Chief Harney, who is presiding, holds off calling to order. While we are meeting informally Justice Wheat urges us all to vote no on Proposition 90, saying it will in effect allow the government to seize by imminent domain a lot of lands that would otherwise be protected environmental areas. Justice Harney disagreed, and it went back and forth until someone else (jokingly) suggested they schedule a debate in the coffee house.
   Next I announced my distress at seeing the Wikipedia article of the day declaring that .999... equals exactly 1. Particularly alarming, at least two of the proofs offered were very easy to follow and seemed compelling. I, however, remain suspicious that the problem is with our math system and not reality.
8:18 - Meeting called to order. We discuss the latest developments in the ASUC Berkeley scandal, discuss the case we discussed last week just a little more (as Harney had been absent at the time and had some thoughts). It is proposed that for further practice and to really hash out our thoughts on the subject we will cobble together a brief unofficial opinion on our take on the case - Justices Wheat & Coady volunteer to head this.
   We unanymously accept the Senate's recommendation that "Student" be stricken from the Judicial Codes where it erroniously says "Student Court." We discuss who will Vice Chief for the next two weeks, in accordance with our Partitioned Vice-Chiefship Plan, and parli pro starts to get a bit wacky. Coady: "Lets move on to the next agenda item then, nominations for Vice Chief" Harney: "Alright its moved that we take nominations for Vice Chief, do I have a second?" Coady: "I second" Harney: "you can't second, you moved!" Coady: "No, I recommended, YOU moved, so I can second!" We were of course joking, we're not that anal-retentive. Coady declined a nomination, Wheat was nominated and accepted uncontested as the new Vice Chief (for the next two weeks).
   Then we got into a discussion as to when exactly one is impeached. We know that an impeachment that is not successful is still an impeachment (for example I was impeached three times but never removed), but the Chief Justice before me resigned the morning of her impeachment, so was she technically impeached?
   Harney brought up that he'd talked to Student Judicial Affairs and they had said they might consider transferring review of parking ticket appeals to us. While this seems at first kind of an odd thing to add to our repetoire, a lot of Chief Justices at other universities I've talked to have mentioned having such a duty as well, and I think it might be a good addition to our role, didn't seem to have any major drawbacks (other than increased workload and potentially less interesting cases, but I think we could deal), and students would probably feel better about appealing their parking tickets to us than to faceless SJA droids. We were all interested in having Harney look into this further.
8:50ish - Meeting adjourned.

   In other news, the ASUCD Bill to formally remove us from UCSA has been written and introduced I believe. It was written by none other than former UCSA Chair Brent Laabs.
   Also, regarding the Berkeley scandal, apparently the attempt to pilfer the ASUC Berkeley treasury has been dropped from the Senate Bill. Now all it does is say that everyone should work on better bylaws. Now there's a shocking new policy. Maybe we should legislate that we should legislate as well!

Completely Unrelated Picture of the Day