Opposed to for the same reasons I expressed before.
Whereas a motion to remove a Justice is an appraisal of the Justice themself, a motion to reduce or remove a sentence is an appraisal of the sentence and the sentence alone. There is therefore no conflict of interest that justifies stripping the Justices of voting rights in this manner.
Even if there were a conflict of interest, Lazarus is typically lax with those who retain their voting rights. Our Speaker, for example, retains his right to vote-thereby being partial-because he is trusted to count the votes impartially. If citizens cannot extend that trust to our Justices then in order to be consistent other offices will no doubt find themselves losing these rights.
Whereas a motion to remove a Justice is an appraisal of the Justice themself, a motion to reduce or remove a sentence is an appraisal of the sentence and the sentence alone. There is therefore no conflict of interest that justifies stripping the Justices of voting rights in this manner.
Even if there were a conflict of interest, Lazarus is typically lax with those who retain their voting rights. Our Speaker, for example, retains his right to vote-thereby being partial-because he is trusted to count the votes impartially. If citizens cannot extend that trust to our Justices then in order to be consistent other offices will no doubt find themselves losing these rights.