Supreme Court of Selucia

The Supreme Court of Selucia (in Selucian: Supremum Iudicatorium) is the highest federal court of Selucia. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all regional courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the legal system of Selucia, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction.

The Court consists of the Magni Iudex (Supreme Judge) of Selucia and six Superior Iudicum (Superior Judges) who are nominated by the Caesar Senatus and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed after impeachment (though no justice has ever been removed). In modern discourse, the justices are often categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. Each justice has one vote, and while many cases are decided unanimously, the highest profile cases often expose ideological beliefs that track with those philosophical or political categories. The Iudicatorium meets in the Selucia Supreme Court Building in Victoria, Uleroth.

History
The Supreme Court was created in 4100 by Ethan Megalos and Kyrian Aetius Flavius, soon after their party In Marea Possumus Facere came to power after defeating Factio Conservativa in the 4100 elections, as part of their electoral program in order to separate the judicial and executive powers in Selucia

Size
At first the bill did not specified the number of justices. However, Athena Scudo in 4116 decided to limit the number to six and the Magni Iudex, in order to keep it regulated.

Appointment and confirmation
The Caesar Senatus shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the 'Supremum Iudicatorium." Most Caesares nominate candidates who broadly share their ideological views, although a justice's decisions may end up being contrary to a president's expectations. Because the Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, a president 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. Once the committee reports out the nomination, the full Senate considers it. Rejections are relatively uncommon;

Nevertheless, not every nominee has received a floor vote in the Senate. Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a nomination, a nominee may be filibustered once debate has begun in the full Senate. A president may also withdraw a nomination before the actual confirmation vote occurs, typically because it is clear that the Senate will reject the nominee.

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.

Retired Justices
They may be designated for temporary assignments to sit on lower regional courts. Such assignments are formally made by the Magni Iudex, on request of the Iudex of the lower court and with the consent of the retired Justice.

Justices sometimes strategically plan their decisions to leave the bench, with personal, institutional, and partisan factors playing a role. The fear of mental decline and death often motivates justices to step down. The desire to maximize the Court's strength and legitimacy through one retirement at a time, when the Court is in recess, and during non-presidential election years suggests a concern for institutional health. Finally, especially in recent decades, many justices have timed their departure to coincide with a philosophically compatible president holding office, to ensure that a like-minded successor would be appointed.