View Topic

[Do you approve of this bill, or of the idea of a separate Judicial Branch of government?]

Do you approve of this bill, or of the idea of a separate Judicial Branch of government?

Yes I approve of this bill, and the idea of a separate Judicial Branch of government

2 (16.7%)

I don't approve of this bill currently, but I do support a separate Judicial Branch of government

4 (33.3%)

I do not support either.

3 (25%)

Unsure

3 (25%)

Total Members Voted: 12

I feel like most of the issues raised in these debates are adressed in the proposal Moot wrote a while back, http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=1250
I feel like it's a very well written piece of legislation that I would support if it was re-re-reintroduced into the UH.

I believe we could get it passed this term if we were to introduce it soon.  Can the Monarch comment on his amendment's readiness for action?

This IS a monarchy. What do you expect?

A monarchy that would realise a judicial branch of government is needed?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

Gov I'm telling you this in the nicest way possible, this is a monarchy, and it doesn't give a damn what you think it needed, it will serve it's own purpose. If you have a problem with having a problem with the way the region is run, you are free to leave...oh wait most other regions have banned you. (And that wasn't a joke but a swipe at you, also quoted from the monarch during conversations with him recently)

Wow Chanku, once again with the personal swipes?  Seriously knock it off.  What ever happened to "I've learned from my mistakes?"  You clearly have not.

I expected better.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

That was my first personal swipe at you that I actually meant(the other was merely a joke that I decided to take, that admittedly was done in poor taste) however I'm also quoting Wintermoot as well.

It doesn't matter.  You are out of line and it shows you haven't learned from your mistakes.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

Well, it was first voted down in the Overhusen, and then tabled in the Underhusen later, at which point I promised not to introduce it myself again. If I remember correctly, the main issue that was posted was regarding the restrictions on who can apply. As I have said before, I feel that experts should try law and people who have served in the Storting are the most knowledgeable.

However, I would support removing that provision if the time they had to have been a Citizen is increased in turn.

I feel like most of the issues raised in these debates are adressed in the proposal Moot wrote a while back, http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=1250
I feel like it's a very well written piece of legislation that I would support if it was re-re-reintroduced into the UH.

It won't work.  There needs to be a separate branch of government to prevent conflicts of interest.  we have enough active people that my proposal would feasibly work.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

I feel like most of the issues raised in these debates are adressed in the proposal Moot wrote a while back, http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=1250
I feel like it's a very well written piece of legislation that I would support if it was re-re-reintroduced into the UH.

It won't work.  There needs to be a separate branch of government to prevent conflicts of interest.  we have enough active people that my proposal would feasibly work.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

This is your opinion.

I feel like most of the issues raised in these debates are adressed in the proposal Moot wrote a while back, http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=1250
I feel like it's a very well written piece of legislation that I would support if it was re-re-reintroduced into the UH.

It won't work.  There needs to be a separate branch of government to prevent conflicts of interest.  we have enough active people that my proposal would feasibly work.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

This is your opinion.

I have never seen a region not have a judicial branch of government except 10000 Islands, and over there it's because Grub is Judge Judy and Executioner

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

I feel like most of the issues raised in these debates are adressed in the proposal Moot wrote a while back, http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=1250
I feel like it's a very well written piece of legislation that I would support if it was re-re-reintroduced into the UH.

It won't work.  There needs to be a separate branch of government to prevent conflicts of interest.  we have enough active people that my proposal would feasibly work.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

This is your opinion.

I have never seen a region not have a judicial branch of government except 10000 Islands, and over there it's because Grub is Judge Judy and Executioner

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

I've never seen a region with a 6-month sunshine policy either.

I feel like most of the issues raised in these debates are adressed in the proposal Moot wrote a while back, http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=1250
I feel like it's a very well written piece of legislation that I would support if it was re-re-reintroduced into the UH.

It won't work.  There needs to be a separate branch of government to prevent conflicts of interest.  we have enough active people that my proposal would feasibly work.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

This is your opinion.

I have never seen a region not have a judicial branch of government except 10000 Islands, and over there it's because Grub is Judge Judy and Executioner

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

I've never seen a region with a 6-month sunshine policy either.

Which is a completely separate issue.

I feel like most of the issues raised in these debates are adressed in the proposal Moot wrote a while back, http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=1250
I feel like it's a very well written piece of legislation that I would support if it was re-re-reintroduced into the UH.

It won't work.  There needs to be a separate branch of government to prevent conflicts of interest.  we have enough active people that my proposal would feasibly work.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

This is your opinion.

I have never seen a region not have a judicial branch of government except 10000 Islands, and over there it's because Grub is Judge Judy and Executioner

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

I've never seen a region with a 6-month sunshine policy either.

Irrelevant and off-topic.

Not at all.  Your own logic, Gov, regarding sunshine policy can be applied to the formation of a judicial system. 

I feel like most of the issues raised in these debates are adressed in the proposal Moot wrote a while back, http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=1250
I feel like it's a very well written piece of legislation that I would support if it was re-re-reintroduced into the UH.

Looking at it again.

Save for the grammar and spelling issues, reword it so that only former members of the Storting are allowed to serve, and possibly citizens who can pass a Wintreath Law exam, and prevent current members of the Storting and Riksrad from serving, then I may support it.

To ensure impartiality and prevent conflicts of interest, we can't have current members of the Riksrad or Storting serve.  We also have the activity numbers for either proposal.

In the interest of getting something done, I believe that to be a fair compromise.  I do wonder, however, about the tabulation and administration of the law exam.  Who would put it together?  Who is eligible to take the test?  More importantly, what government body answers these questions?  Finally, when would the test be administered?  One of the main goals of WM's proposal is to ensure swift adoption of cases and immediate action on them.  Setting up a law exam, administering it, and grading it would take a considerable amount of time.

EDIT:  This has been a very productive discussion up to this point.  I'm going offline for a while, and I'll get back to your replies later tonight.

Yeah a law exam may not be practical. Surely being qualified will depend on if Wintermoot believes you are qualified enough to be a judge.

In the interest of getting something done, I believe that to be a fair compromise.  I do wonder, however, about the tabulation and administration of the law exam.  Who would put it together?  Who is eligible to take the test?  More importantly, what government body answers these questions?  Finally, when would the test be administered?  One of the main goals of WM's proposal is to ensure swift adoption of cases and immediate action on them.  Setting up a law exam, administering it, and grading it would take a considerable amount of time.

EDIT:  This has been a very productive discussion up to this point.  I'm going offline for a while, and I'll get back to your replies later tonight.

How else are we to know they understand the law?  The exam would be to those who are eligible and wishing to join Wintermoot's proposed body, The Lagsmann Radet.  Wintermoot and/or two or three people could be the ones to grade their answers.   How else would Wintermoot think you're qualified?  And honestly, what if a case involves him?  How can he be neutral enough to pick three judges for  case that would involve him in either a civil or criminal case?

These are very pertinent questions, and I appreciate your civility and patience on this, Skrifa Point Breeze.