Currently operating in its third semester following a 15-year hiatus in violation of the student body constitution, Eastern’s student supreme court awaits the appointment of two new justices as well as a chief justice within the next week.

Application process

Under Article IV of the student body constitution, it is the student body president’s responsibility to appoint individuals to serve on the judicial branch, whose nominations are subject to confirmation through a two-thirds majority vote by the student senate.

“According to the constitution, the president doesn’t even have to do an interview process,” said Student Body President Michelle Murphy. “They’re straight-up appointments, so they could just appoint anyone at any time.”

In the effort to better judge the potential competency of each candidate, however, Murphy said she accepts paper applications throughout a semester before conducting a one-on-one interview with each candidate.

Last semester, Murphy conducted a group interview prior to meeting with each applicant individually and reviewing their paper application.

This semester, she interviewed three applicants vying to fill two open seats in the court.

Murphy will also bring her nomination for chief justice, Jared Hausmann, before the student senate at today’s student senate meeting in the Arcola/Tuscola Room of the Martin Luther King Jr. University Union.

After the candidates are interviewed, they are invited to appear before the student senate, where Murphy will make her personal recommendations before the floor opens for a period of questions and subsequent discussion.

Once approved, new justices are immediately sworn in to complete a two-semester term to commence duties as defenders of the governing document on the student supreme court.

Reinstatement

Since reinstated in spring 2009 by former Student Body President Levi Bulgar, the student supreme court has endured a lengthy absence on campus that records cannot account for.

Bulgar said he experienced difficulty tracking down former student senate members from the early 1990s who may have been able to explain why the court was dissolved in the first place.

Working solely off old phone numbers, Bulgar was largely unable to identify the cause for the court’s disbandment.

“That is one of the very few things that we really didn’t find out. We could really only speculate at that point,” he said. “We guessed there was a possibility that maybe appointments weren’t being made or somebody probably gave up and forgot about it. There was even the possibility that because the student body constitution and the student bill of rights was not being promoted to the students, they did not know what rights they had, therefore rights might have been infringed upon.”

Though Bulgar describes the court as functioning in its infancy, he views its continued assembly as a necessary facet of the student body.

“Without having that important check and balance within the university, who knows exactly how far one branch of government could have gone or maybe even did go over the years that the student supreme court was not in function?” Bulgar said.

When he first began organizing the initiative to staff the court, he teamed up with members of the student senate to conduct research and compile information.

“In the past, the unfortunate thing was the student justices would be appointed and then kind of left to their own devices, and it just kind of failed.” Bulgar said. “There was really no structure, no guidance, and it sure doesn’t help you if there had been no claims, because very few, if any, students actually knew what rights that they had within the constitution in the student bill of rights, so obviously no claims had actually been made.”

Recent cases

The student supreme court heard its first case since being reinstated during the second week of the fall semester.

Commencing the term with too few senators to meet quorum, the student senate was prohibited from conducting business and attempted to suspend their bylaws, Murphy said.

“The problem was that we couldn’t suspend the bylaws because we didn’t have enough senators to suspend them, and so we were in kind of a real bad situation just because we had so many senators who resigned or graduated that we just didn’t have the 16 that we needed,” she said.

Tiffany Turner, former student speaker of the senate, then appealed to the court to suspend the bylaws momentarily so as to induct the new senate members.

At the hearing of “Turner v. Student Body Constitution,” the court unanimously pronounced this action unconstitutional and suggested that former senate members who had not submitted official letters of resignation temporarily sit in to meet quorum.

“We were able to conduct business that first week,” Murphy said. “I thought they did a good job. It sets a dangerous precedent when you do something that goes against the constitution or suspend the bylaws, because they’re not there to be suspended. I think that it was the best thing they could’ve done.”

In their second and final case for the semester, the court ruled that the method to revise the student body constitution was appropriate after a student expressed a concern that the senate’s committee on constitutional oversight violated the student body constitution.

“In the constitution, there are three ways that the document can be amended,” Murphy said. “The individual assumed that we had taken a particular method, and then accused us of being unconstitutional by that method of amendment.”

A revision may be proposed by a constitutional review commision composed of seven members, including student senate members, student government executive officers and non-student senate members.

History major John Goldsworthy appealed to the court on the grounds that the active review commission was composed of 10 members, none of whom were non-senate members, or a member of the executive board, as required by the constitution.

The student senate, however, insisted the method of amendment used was, in fact, constitutional, as a constitutional review committee was not used to revise the document.

Instead, a commission on constitutional oversight, which is considered a proposal by submission to the student senate, was formed.

Before the error was identified, the court had served the student senate a preliminary injunction to remove the vote on constitutional revisions from the ballot.

Murphy said this request was ultimately ignored, as some members of the senate were passionate about keeping the vote on the ballot.

“It was awkward, it was a nice slap in the face, and it was at the last second,” Murphy said. “The powers that be on the senate and the speaker decided that they were going to put it on the ballot anyway. It worked out in our favor, everything was fine, we were, in fact, constitutional, and the vote passed. In my opinion, had we not put it on the ballot.”.”

Review

In the effort to add an additional period of application and review to the process of selecting new court justices, student senate member Matthew Pickham, chair of the tuition and fee review committee, attempted to pass a resolution through the senate that would establish a senate judiciary committee.

The proposal was met with extensive debate from the senate, whose opponents deemed the committee an unnecessary step that would undermine the judgment of the student body president.

While proponents welcomed what they expressed as added scrutiny to the application process, the resolution failed with a vote of 11-30-0.

If passed, the legislation would have established a committee composed of volunteer senate members who would evaluate the court nominees and report their recommendations to the senate

The committee would have also been in charge of investigating issues of constitutionality on the senate’s behalf.

Murphy opposed the resolution particularly on the grounds that Pickham confirmed that part of its purpose would be to eliminate an intimidation factor he feels is present when openly questioning the candidates.

Murphy said it was not the job of the senate to ensure the comfort of the justices, as a real courtroom situation would be uncomfortable.

“To me, that’s really cowardly and the fact that that is the reason only makes us cowardly,” she said. “If you have a brave senate, they would ask the questions they wanted to ask. We should have the opportunity to interrogate at anytime. We shouldn’t have to do it behind closed doors.”

As for the relationship that the senate shares with the court, Murphy emphasizes the need to remain separate but equal entities on campus.

“Really the only connection that the two have are the initial voting to get the person on court,” Murphy said. “Outside that first endorsement, there is no relationship at all.”

Murphy expressed her belief that the senate feels threatened because the court has kept a close eye on its procedure.

“The more eyes watching us, the more likely we are to do a better job,” she said. “Ideally, if everything was functioning correctly, if people were always doing what they needed to do, there would never be a reason for court.”

Erica Whelan can be reached at 581-7942 or [email protected].

To read about student supreme court applicant Jose Alarcon, click here.

To read about student supreme court applicant Molly Button, click here.

To read about student supreme court applicant Hakeem Smith, click here.