(01-31-2017, 11:06 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:

(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.

Addressing your first point, we already have a mechanism for CRS CoIs which we are all pretty much agreeing that isn't the big problem, its the party affiliation. But, (serious) parties have now existed for an entire year (It's actually the 1 year anniversary of the APC today), and there hasn't been a single case brought to the court by either party. Still, one might ask, "What if we have a party case?", I say take a chance, one recuse from one case isn't the end of the world, and definitely shouldn't bar anyone from being on the court. We have a pool of justices for the rare occasions on which the PJ must recuse.

On to your second point, Just like Roavin said, Farengeto has not drafted any part of court reform, If you would like to verify that, join the APC discord and look through what we have, he isn't even on the thread for court reform. Also, are you saying that if lets say, Glen or Bel, or anyone else drafted a law, and was later put on to the court, and later that law was brought to the court, I could trust that one of the architects of that law could clarify what they meant, without bias.

Addressing your last point, when there is "procedural due process, a contradiction of law, or judicial misconduct", to my understanding a pool justice will verify those claims, and decide an appeal. As for legal cases, I trust that bias can be cast aside for the rare time a CoI may arise.

In the end, I can't recall that there has been a CoI that I've seen since I've been here. We do need to work out a new system, which is why we should work out court reform further.