View Topic

That will prevent one person or a small group of people from enforcing their own agenda on the region through rulings.

I haven't experienced many times where a Justice has ever ruled anything in favor of themselves. I mean it really just doesn't come up all that much. Any respectable justice would recluse himself from cases where he would be biased. Hell I am an Associate Justice and a Lord in the British Isles and in a VoNC I abstained because the VoNC was the Chief of Justice...

It takes good people, not mediocre legislation, to make these things work.

That will prevent one person or a small group of people from enforcing their own agenda on the region through rulings.

I haven't experienced many times where a Justice has ever ruled anything in favor of themselves. I mean it really just doesn't come up all that much. Any respectable justice would recluse himself from cases where he would be biased. Hell I am an Associate Justice and a Lord in the British Isles and in a VoNC I abstained because the VoNC was the Chief of Justice...

It takes good people, not mediocre legislation, to make these things work.

recuse* not recluse, and Lord Chief Justice*

Just correcting.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

I understand that, I just don't think it should be harbored on. What works here will work here, what didn't work elsewhere won't necessarily NOT work here. :/

As I said, it was a mere example of why I believe such systems to be flawed, especially in NS. Whether providing a relevant example counts as 'dwelling' on it or not, it doesn't change anything about my actual opinion. It only gives insight behind the formulation of that opinion and the reasoning the current system exists, since I largely wrote the current system.

That will prevent one person or a small group of people from enforcing their own agenda on the region through rulings.

I haven't experienced many times where a Justice has ever ruled anything in favor of themselves. I mean it really just doesn't come up all that much. Any respectable justice would recluse himself from cases where he would be biased. Hell I am an Associate Justice and a Lord in the British Isles and in a VoNC I abstained because the VoNC was the Chief of Justice...

It takes good people, not mediocre legislation, to make these things work.

recuse* not recluse, and Lord Chief Justice*

Just correcting.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

I appreciate the editing assistance. Gov. ;3

That will prevent one person or a small group of people from enforcing their own agenda on the region through rulings.

I haven't experienced many times where a Justice has ever ruled anything in favor of themselves. I mean it really just doesn't come up all that much. Any respectable justice would recluse himself from cases where he would be biased. Hell I am an Associate Justice and a Lord in the British Isles and in a VoNC I abstained because the VoNC was the Chief of Justice...

It takes good people, not mediocre legislation, to make these things work.

recuse* not recluse, and Lord Chief Justice*

Just correcting.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

I appreciate the editing assistance. Gov. ;3

 

So the main issues I'm seeing here are :

1) A standing judiciary, with no means of recall or impeachment, leads to power hungry judges

OK, so a standing judiciary, independent of the executive or legislative, BUT with a means of recall, such as initiative, vote of no confidence by the Skrifa, or Royal Degree - would that be ok?

2) The judges, whoever they might be, must be experienced enough to know the ins-and-outs of the regional law
2.1) BUT using the people who made the laws is a conflict of interest

WM's proposal and the proposal at question both run afoul of this.  The question is, amend the proposal or scrap it?

I know I do not want a standing judiciary, and Wintermoot holds the same position I believe.

So the main issues I'm seeing here are :

1) A standing judiciary, with no means of recall or impeachment, leads to power hungry judges

OK, so a standing judiciary, independent of the executive or legislative, BUT with a means of recall, such as initiative, vote of no confidence by the Skrifa, or Royal Degree - would that be ok?

2) The judges, whoever they might be, must be experienced enough to know the ins-and-outs of the regional law
2.1) BUT using the people who made the laws is a conflict of interest

WM's proposal and the proposal at question both run afoul of this.  The question is, amend the proposal or scrap it?

Recall them via legislative super-majority - 2/3s of both the UH and OH or the people's vote via special recall election.  The recall numbers will have to be larger though if done via the people.

and Yes, amend the proposal.  I'm more than willing to work with the UH on this, Skrifa Point Breeze.

Is there anything else the Underhusen needs?

We'll talk specifics later, but I'm glad we can work on this draft - question is, can we?  Since Chanku introduced the bill, I believe he would be the one who has to permit any changes.

I know I do not want a standing judiciary, and Wintermoot holds the same position I believe.

Even if they were only in their role when assigned cases and would be considered "inactive" otherwise, and if they were subject to recall and impeachment?

Well here's the thing I know I(and possibly Wintermoot) Don't want any one person to have a judge position, but instead want different people to be judges each case...

So we have a pool of judges and select three randomly to hear each case.

* Denth Kasten throws an idea out.

How about elected Judges?

Every 6 months (or whatever timeframe works for you guys), we elect 3 judges... They are subject to the same requirements of being in the UH, meaning they can be recalled and such.

* Jone throws Denth an idea

;3

We'll talk specifics later, but I'm glad we can work on this draft - question is, can we?  Since Chanku introduced the bill, I believe he would be the one who has to permit any changes.

I know I do not want a standing judiciary, and Wintermoot holds the same position I believe.

Even if they were only in their role when assigned cases and would be considered "inactive" otherwise, and if they were subject to recall and impeachment?

You could have them reactivated for each case, or have them help improve standards of law in their downtime. 

* Denth Kasten throws an idea out.

How about elected Judges?

Every 6 months (or whatever timeframe works for you guys), we elect 3 judges... They are subject to the same requirements of being in the UH, meaning they can be recalled and such.

This is something I advocated above, and an idea that I will fully support.