(06-05-2018, 11:15 PM)Imperial Frost Federation Wrote: I have some concerns about the inevitable CoIs resulting from holding office in two distinct Branches. What are some steps that you will take to prevent the unlikely event that you preside over a case where you have a potential CoI? 

Principally, I would recuse myself from any case implicating executive powers. I don't think there's any scenario where it would be appropriate for me to hear a case like that, while serving as Prime Minister. Ideally, somebody else would replace me as Associate Justice, because that would be easier for me in the long-run. But I'm also cognizant of the fact that the Assembly passed the Judicial Act reforms in part with the intent that Associate Justices wouldn't be firewalled.

(06-05-2018, 11:15 PM)Imperial Frost Federation Wrote: What other measures or plans do you have in mind in increasing the transparency of the Cabinet?

I think the Cabinet should treat the Assembly more like the US Congress is treated in real life. The Assembly should be notified, if not consulted, about actions that would have big implications for the region, before taking them. When I was Minister of Foreign Affairs, for example, I didn't negotiate the TRR and Lazarus treaties in secret, even though they marked a turning point for our region. The Assembly was fully aware of what I was doing, and in fact I had even ran on it in my election. That's the kind of transparency I think we should have. The Assembly should rarely be surprised by a Cabinet action.

(06-05-2018, 11:15 PM)Imperial Frost Federation Wrote: How do you plan on combining the unique ideas of individual ministers so that they form into a coherent agenda?

Ideally, those elected will have ideas that flow together easily. Not every candidate has posted their campaigns yet, so it's hard to answer this fully. I would expect the four of us to reach a common overarching agenda and purpose. That might involve compromises. But at the end of the day, I think the Prime Minister should be the leader, and that means they should have a large say in that agenda. It's been a while since the Assembly has elected Cabinet ministers with wildly different beliefs, but in case that happens, the Prime Minister's agenda should take precedence after compromise has been exhausted.

(06-05-2018, 11:15 PM)Imperial Frost Federation Wrote: Do you prefer Pancakes or Waffles?

Waffles, but only if they're Belgian waffles with a nice fruit compote.

(06-05-2018, 11:15 PM)Imperial Frost Federation Wrote: Cake or Pie?

Pie, no questions about it.

(06-05-2018, 11:15 PM)Imperial Frost Federation Wrote: Favorite version of SPIT?

I like the classic version I helped create A traditional Long Island Iced Tea, substituting lemon-line soda and blue curacao.

(06-05-2018, 11:15 PM)Imperial Frost Federation Wrote: Who do you believe will post the craziest campaign this term? 

Resentine's is already pretty crazy

(06-06-2018, 09:52 AM)Belschaft Wrote: When did your view on separation of powers - and that people shouldn’t have multiple politicians in different branches of government - change? Why did it change? 

In the 16 months between then and now, the Cabinet and judiciary has struggled to fill the judicial bench as required by law. The pool of justices system was good in theory, but whenever it needed to be used, there was a very good chance that all pool justices were either inactive or holding office elsewhere. When Roavin proposed scrapping that pool system and adding two new appointed justices, I was skeptical and said we weren't going to be able to find two highly qualified people to do the job. Everybody who I could imagine being considered was active in government or a regular candidate in elections. That makes sense, because running for office is the main way to gain experience and trust in the community.

His answer was getting rid of the firewall between Associate Justices and the executive branch. This was explicit since the first draft: "Instead, we just have the High Court, led by a firewalled chief justice and aided by several non-firewalled associate justices." It was the most discussed aspect of the reforms, and the bill was passed 27-0. The Assembly spoke then, and they said they were fine with Associate Justices serving other roles in government. I debated the issue, too, and Roavin convinced me (along with the past 2 years of evidence that the firewall was breaking the judiciary).

I wouldn't say that my position has wholly changed on separation of powers. I've been convinced by pretty solid arguments and experiences that the firewall for Associate Justices was an impracticality for our game. That doesn't mean I believe somebody should be Delegate and Prime Minister, or MoFA and Chair. The judiciary is unique in that it's a) far less active, b) necessarily reactionary, and c) non-political. It's an area of government where we don't need strict separation for it to work. It certainly helps that Kris is only a justice, and he's the Chief Justice. If all 3 justices were politically active, that could very well be a problem. There are no hard and fast rules, like most things in our game.