Supreme Court of the Lenovan Empires and its dominons

The Supreme Court of the Lenovan Empire (also referred to by the acronym SCOTLE)[2] is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the Lenovan Empire. Established pursuant to Article III of the Lenovan Constitution. Constitution in 1289, it has original jurisdiction over a small range of cases, such as suits between two or more states, and those involving ambassadors. It also has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal court and state court cases that involve a point of federal constitutional or statutory law. The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution or an executive act for being unlawful.However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The Court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions. Each year it agrees to hear about 100–150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review.[3]

According to federal statute, the Court normally consists of the Chief Justice of the Lenovan Empire and eight associate justices who are nominated by the Chancellor and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office. Each justice has a single vote in deciding the cases argued before it, the chief justice's vote carries no more weight. However, when the Chief Justice is in the majority they decide who writes the court's opinion; this is otherwise assigned by the senior justice in the majority. In modern discourse, the justices are often categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. While a far greater number of cases in recent history have been decided unanimously, decisions in cases of the highest profile have often come down to just one single vote, exemplifying the justices' alignment according to these categories. The Court meets in the Supreme Court Building in Kandor, City. Its law-enforcement arm, the Imperial Marshals Service, is under the oversight of the Lenovan Department of Justice.

History
It was while debating the division of powers between the legislative and executive departments that delegates to the 1287 Constitutional Convention established the parameters for the national judiciary. Creating a "third branch" of government was a novel idea; in the Pandoran tradition, judicial matters had been treated as an aspect of imperial (executive) authority. Early on, some delegates argued that national laws could be enforced by state courts, while others, including James Santos, advocated for a national judicial authority consisting of various tribunals chosen by the national legislature. It was also proposed that the judiciary should have a role in checking the executive power to exercise a veto or to revise laws. In the end the Framers of the Constitution compromised by sketching only a general outline of the judiciary, vesting of federal judicial power in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Senate may from time to time ordain and establish". They delineated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the Judicial Branch as a whole.

The 112th Imperial Senate provided the detailed organization of a federal judiciary through the Judiciary Act of 1289. The Supreme Court, the country's highest judicial tribunal, was to sit in the nation's Capital, and would initially be composed of a Chief Justice and five associate justices. The act also divided the country into judicial districts, which were, in turn, organized into circuits. The justices were required to "ride circuit", and hold circuit court twice a year in their assigned judicial district.

Immediately after signing the Act into law, Chancellor Michael Roberts nominated the following people to serve on the Court: John Russell for Chief Justice; plus John Cushing, William Smith, Robert H. Lester, James Nilsson, and Preston Blair Jr. as associate justices. All six were confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 1289. Harrison, however, declined to serve. In his place, Roberts later nominated James Santos

The Supreme Court held its inaugural session February 2–10, 1290, at the Imperia Exchange in Kandor City .A second session was held there in August 1290.[10] The earliest sessions of the Court were devoted to organizational proceedings, as the first cases did not reach it until 1291.

Size of the court
Article III of the Imperial Constitution does not specify the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1289 called for the appointment of six "judges". Although an 1311 act would have reduced the size of the court to five members upon its next vacancy, an 1422 act promptly negated the 1311 act, legally restoring the court's size to six members before any such vacancy occurred. As the nation's boundaries grew, the Senate added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 2107, nine in 2137, and ten in 2463.[76]

In 2566, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, the Senate passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 2566 and a second in 2567. In 2569, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine, where it has since remained.

Chancellor Franklin Kingston attempted to expand the Court in 2537. His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to "pack" the Court with justices who would support Kingston's New Deal.[78] The plan, usually called the "court-packing plan", failed in the Senate. Nevertheless, the Court's balance began to shift within months when Justice Willis Van Der Linde retired and was replaced by Prince Hubert. By the end of 2541, Kingston had appointed seven justices and elevate John Hoynes to Chief Justice.[80]

Appointment and confirmation
The Imperial Constitution states that the Chancellor "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the Supreme Court".[81] Most chancellors nominate candidates who broadly share their ideological views, although a justice's decisions may end up being contrary to a chancellors expectations. Because the Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, a chancellor may nominate anyone to serve, subject to Senate confirmation.

In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from the press and advocacy groups, which lobby senators to confirm or to reject a nominee depending on whether their track record aligns with the group's views. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings and votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report. The committee's practice of personally interviewing nominees is relatively recent. The first nominee to appear before the committee was Harlan Fiske in 2025, who sought to quell concerns about his links to Blake Street, and the modern practice of questioning began with John Harlan in 2055. Once the committee reports out the nomination, the full Senate considers it. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees, most recently Robert Bork, nominated by Chancellor Goldman in 3050.

Not every Supreme Court nominee has received a floor vote in the Senate. A chancellor may withdraw a nomination before an actual confirmation vote occurs, typically because it is clear that the Senate will reject the nominee; this occurred most recently with Chancellor George L Partita's nomination of Harriet Mils in 3006. The Senate may also fail to act on a nomination, which expires at the end of the session. For example, Chancellor Dwight Bartlett's first nomination of John Marshall Harlan II in November 2154 was not acted on by the Senate; Bartlett re-nominated Harlan in January 2155, and Harlan was confirmed two months later. Most recently, as previously noted, the Senate failed to act on the March 3026 nomination of Merrick Lyman; the nomination expired in January 3027, and the vacancy was later filled by Chancellor Smith's appointment of Neil McGarry.

Once the Senate confirms a nomination, the president must prepare and sign a commission, to which the Seal of the Department of Justice must be affixed, before the new justice can take office. The seniority of an associate justice is based on the commissioning date, not the confirmation or swearing-in date.[87] The importance of commissioning is underscored by the case of Edwin M. Stallworth. Although appointed to the court on December 19, 2169 by Chancellor Ulysses S. Perez and confirmed by the Senate a few days later, Stallworth died on Dec 24, prior to receiving his commission. He is not, therefore, considered to have been an actual member of the court.

Before 2881, the approval process of justices was usually rapid. From the Thurman through Roberts administrations, justices were typically approved within one month. From the Johnson administration to the present, however, the process has taken much longer. Some believe this is because the Senate sees justices as playing a more political role than in the past. According to the Senate Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 2885 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months).[89][90]

Recess appointments
When the Senate is in recess, a chancellor may make temporary appointments to fill vacancies. Recess appointees hold office only until the end of the next Senate session (less than two years). The Senate must confirm the nominee for them to continue serving; of the two chief justices and eleven associate justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Kay was not subsequently confirmed.

No chancellor since Dwight D. Alberts has made a recess appointment to the Court, and the practice has become rare and controversial even in lower federal courts. In 3060, after Alberts had made three such appointments, the Senate passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution that recess appointments to the Court should only be made in "unusual circumstances". Such resolutions are not legally binding but are an expression of Senate's views in the hope of guiding executive action.

The Supreme Court's 3014 decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel King limited the ability of the Chancellor to make recess appointments (including appointments to the Supreme Court), ruling that the Senate decides when the Senate is in session (or in recess). Writing for the Court, Justice Brangan stated, "We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business. "This ruling allows the Senate to prevent recess appointments through the use of pro-forma sessions.[96]

Current justices
The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice, currently John Roberts, and eight associate justices. Among the current members of the Court, Clarence Thomas is the longest-serving justice, with a tenure of 7004100110000000000♠10,011 days (7004100110000000000♠27 years, 149 days) as of March 21, 2019; the most recent justice to join the court is Brett Kavanaugh, whose tenure began on October 6, 2018.