After more than a decade of inactivity, the Student Supreme Court is re-established and getting prepared to maintain the organization in future years.

Student Body President Levi Bulgar appointed seven justices to serve on the court during the Nov. 12 and Nov. 19 Student Senate meetings.

The justices for the court are Chief Justice Jacob Griffin, and Associate Justices John Hamilton, Jared Hausmann, Quentin E. Frazier Jr., Joy Raines, Marsheela-Ma Stinson and Nathaniel Leitner.

Director of Campus Recreation Ken Baker serves as the court’s adviser.

Griffin said one of the challenges for the court is to reassert itself as a viable student organization on campus.

“We are in a rebuilding mode because the court hasn’t met in years,” Hamilton said. “We have to re-introduce it to the student body so students will know what it is, how to use it and be comfortable to come to us if they have a complaint or grievance.”

Hamilton said the justices have stagnated appointments, so all of them would not be required to leave at the same time.

Baker said he and the Student Supreme Court appreciate Bulgar’s assistance to help get them started again.

However, Baker said other ruling courts have been in place before the Student Supreme Court was re-established.

“Other judicial functions like Grade Appeal and (Resident Assistants) and ultimately the Board of Trustees were in place,” Baker said.

The organization of the court might change since the Committee for Constitutional Oversight will be reviewing the student constitution, particularly the judicial branch.

“I think with the current ambiguity and vagueness of the Student Constitution as it stands now, there is a lot of confusion as to who has standing to bring a case to us,” Griffin said. “Once that is drafted and ratified, it would be easier for future generations to bring their cases to the court.”

First, Baker said, a student files a report to him as the court’s adviser, and then Baker presents the report to the court within seven days.

Griffin explained the rest of the hearing process.

“I would like both parties to write a brief, so the justices will have time to review the arguments before we question the parties,” Griffin said. “I want to let them present their cases for 30 minutes each, and then we would deliberate for a week, and then write our opinions and make a ruling.”

To make filing a complaint or grievance easier, the justices had a meeting in December to have a form for students to print out and write their grievances on the Student Supreme Court’s Web site.

Griffin said the student judicial organization is run like the national and state Supreme Courts. The Student Supreme Court offers an opinion for the student body, not a ruling.

The case first goes through the lower courts, like the Grade Appeal and the Resident Assistants.

If the case is not resolved after going through the lower courts on campus, Griffin and the justices will review the case if it’s a student constitutional issue. Right now, the justices are organizing a mock trial to brush up on their skills.

“We talked about doing a mock case or two so they would not have be nervous and inefficient the first real time,” Hamilton said.

Baker said no precedence would be set in a mock trial. For a real case, Griffin said students are welcome to view like the U. S. Supreme Court.

Hamilton and Griffin gave their opinion on recent constitutional issues. However, they emphasized they could not make a ruling on these issues outside a court hearing.

Commenting on the resolution, Injunction Against Interference with the Student Supreme Court, passed Wednesday by the Student Senate, Hamilton said he understood the legislation’s rationale.

“Either the senators passed this because they thought Bulgar crossed the line or that he will in the future,” Hamilton said. “We are unaware if he has done this.”

Griffin said the resolution was a restatement of the separation of powers listed in the student constitution.

The justices also commented on a happening at the Residence Hall Association’s Jan. 15 meeting.

RHA President Justin Schuch asked for a vote to suspend their organization’s constitution to keep Shannon Davis as secretary. She served as an appointment for two weeks to fill the vacant secretary seat.

At the meeting, Schuch said he did this to keep Davis on board for the semester without a vote. Schuch could not be reached for further comment.

“Suspending the constitution is an injustice to the student body,” Griffin said. “It shouldn’t be tolerated.”

Hamilton was a president of two organizations on campus and said he did not conduct business that way. He still went through the voting process for propriety.

“Constitutions are written for the day-to-day operations of an organization,” Hamilton said. “When you step outside that or suspend it for convenience, you are inviting a lot of problems. Every organization is predicated on its constitution. Once you start a process of ad-hoc decision making outside of the rules, it is an opportunity for complaints and grievances and bad feelings from members of the organization.”

Hamilton said the RHA situation is a case that could be reviewed by the court if someone filed a complaint.

Baker said the court would not interfere with organizations if they were not in compliance with their constitutions.

“It might be something we would let the organizations have some time to fix,” Baker said. “If they don’t remedy it, then it becomes something we could look into.”

Bob Bajek can be reached at 581-7942 or at [email protected]..