+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: Permanent Justice Appointment (/thread-4807.html)
Permanent Justice Appointment - Drugged Monkeys - 01-31-2017
On Behalf of the Cabinet, we would like to submit Farengeto as our nominee for the Permanent Justice vacancy.
Quote:Section 1 - Cabinet Appointment
1. The Cabinet is responsible for appointing a well-qualified person to serve as Permanent Justice of the High Court, who has met the requirements for legislator status.2. When choosing a person to serve, the Cabinet must take into account the trustworthiness, fairness, professionalism, and expertise of their nominee.3. A majority of the Cabinet must support the nominee.
Farengeto has served as Permanent Justice on multiple occasions in the past, as well as on the Pool of Justices.
He currently serves the region as a member of the Council on Regional Security, and previously as Chair of the Assembly, Minister of Regional Affairs, and Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Quote:Section 2 - Assembly Disapproval
1. The Cabinet must submit their nominee to the Assembly, where a three-day debate will commence immediately following the nomination.2. The Assembly may reject the nominee by passing a disapproval vote with at least three-fourths support of those voting, which must be up for vote for five days.3. The nomination will be considered accepted upon the conclusion of the debate period, if a disapproval vote is not initiated, or upon the failure of a disapproval vote.
This Thread will remain open for a minimum of three days, as per above.
Unless a disapproval vote is initiated, at the end of the three day period Farengeto will be considered accepted as Permanent Justice of The South Pacific.
I will now open the floor for debate.
RE: Permanent Justice Appointment - Belschaft - 01-31-2017
I have no issues or questions in regards to this nomination. I have worked with Farengeto in the past, and know him to be a thoroughly competent and objective individual. He will make an excellent Permanent Justice.
RE: Permanent Justice Appointment - Tsunamy - 01-31-2017
Personally, ss Farengeto is both a member of the Council for Regional Security and a member of The Island League, I see huge conflicts on interest considering a wide variety of ruling. Anything laws the TIL drafts, any members of the TIL who file complaints or anything regarding the CRS would need to be ruled on by someone else.
As such, I'm interested in what the plans are for cases where Far must excuse himself?
RE: Permanent Justice Appointment - Escade - 01-31-2017
Ideally a permanent justice shouldn't have many conflicts of interest or be politicized or hold other multiple positions and should be able to parse through legislation. I'm sure Farengeto can do the latter, it's the former that may need to be discussed further.
RE: Permanent Justice Appointment - Kris Kringle - 01-31-2017
Given how Farengeto is one of the most experienced judges in the region, and further given the difficult cases that he has admirably decided in the past, I have no concerns about this nomination. He has proven to be fair and level headed when deciding cases, never letting his personal associations or private opinions get in the way of what the law requires.
RE: Permanent Justice Appointment - Tsunamy - 01-31-2017
I want to make it clear that while I've approved of Far in the past, since the development of political parties, we have new considerations we need to deal with.
As Escade pointed out, it's not longer matter of solely who can do the job, but rather, the appearance of impropriety. Our last two justices (Raven and Feir) were not part of political parties.
This is new territory and I think we need to consider these implications before rubbing stamping this nomination because we like Far.
RE: Permanent Justice Appointment - Tim - 01-31-2017
Having read over Farengeto's history both judicially and on other matters within The South Pacific, I think he will make a fantastic Permanent Justice and is one of the most qualified nominees possible for the job. Full support.
RE: Permanent Justice Appointment - Griffindor - 01-31-2017
I agree that there might be some concern with having a member of a political party on the court, but we have to be willing to try it. We shouldn't fear a "what if" conflict of interest, instead we should be able to trust that they can make the right decision.
We have mechanisms in place to reduce the presence of CoIs. For example, Article 4 Section 11 of the Court Procedures Act is a mechanism, also Article 3 Section 2 Clause 3 of the Judiciary Act also provides a mechanism. The first one listed can have either side of a case motion for recuse, which drastically lowers a CoI, and the second listed, is an automatic recuse already in the law pertaining to membership in the CRS.
Even with the mechanisms in place, you still have the option to be able to prove with sufficient evidence that there was a CoI that influenced the case, and be able to appeal it.
Rejecting Farengeto's appointment for being in a political party is basically the only reason why this was brought up, like I mentioned earlier, we have a CRS mechanism in place already, so we are down to one CoI. I'm sure a simple recuse from one TIL court case shouldn't cost him the job.
I personally give Farengeto my full confidence and endorsement for this confirmation.
(If court reform ever got finished, maybe we could get rid of even more CoIs)
RE: Permanent Justice Appointment - Omega - 01-31-2017
I agree with some of the fears people are raising based on party allegiance and CRS membership. I would like to know how Far plans on ensuring he has no conflicting interests between him and his party. As this is uncharted territory I think it is vital we know how he would keep himself unbiased and maintain the sanctity of the High Court. I recognize we have mechanisms in place for CRS CoI's and I would be interested in hearing how Far would ensure those are implemented appropriately.
(This is me being CoA): We are required to hold three days of debate as per the Judiciary Act. Assuming in my judgment, as per the Charter Article IV Section 5, sufficient debate has occurred (I'm 99% sure it will) and there has not been a motion and a second for a vote on the nominee, the nominee will stand confirmed.
RE: Permanent Justice Appointment - Tsunamy - 01-31-2017
(01-31-2017, 10:41 PM)Griffindor13 Wrote: I agree that there might be some concern with having a member of a political party on the court, but we have to be willing to try it. We shouldn't fear a "what if" conflict of interest, instead we should be able to trust that they can make the right decision.
We have mechanisms in place to reduce the presence of CoIs. For example, Article 4 Section 11 of the Court Procedures Act is a mechanism, also Article 3 Section 2 Clause 3 of the Judiciary Act also provides a mechanism. The first one listed can have either side of a case motion for recuse, which drastically lowers a CoI, and the second listed, is an automatic recuse already in the law pertaining to membership in the CRS.
Even with the mechanisms in place, you still have the option to be able to prove with sufficient evidence that there was a CoI that influenced the case, and be able to appeal it.
Rejecting Farengeto's appointment for being in a political party is basically the only reason why this was brought up, like I mentioned earlier, we have a CRS mechanism in place already, so we are down to one CoI. I'm sure a simple recuse from one TIL court case shouldn't cost him the job.
I personally give Farengeto my full confidence and endorsement for this confirmation.
(If court reform ever got finished, maybe we could get rid of even more CoIs)
I have to disagree here Griffin and, actually, take this a step farther.
First, I don't think it's productive to have a judge who can't rule on wide swathes of the law. If Far is going to need to recuse himself frequently, he shouldn't be the Permanent Justice.
Second, your call out is the perfect example of what you all are missing. As far as I'm concerned, Far cannot rule on and ounce of the court reform if he was involved in its drafting.
Finally, you're primarily looking at criminal cases, not legal questions. As Article 3 Clause 7 of the Court Procedures Act states, appeals can only be heard if something is in violation of "procedural due process, a contradiction of law, or judicial misconduct." Let's also note: who would make sure a determination?
Conflicts of interest are major problems with the judiciary and, if we're being honest, this is something that plagued Far's last turn in the judiciary. Now, everyone is ready to rubber stamp him because we like him without the slightest consideration for how this is actually going work.
Until I get appropriate answers and reassurances rather than a rubber stamp, I'm going to call for a disapproval vote.