| Justices and Political Parties |
(02-02-2015, 06:08 PM)Punchwood Wrote: At the end of the day even if they aren't a member of that party, they will still help it if they ever need to in court. Uh...no. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Because Justices don't just help people they like, if they ever find them in Court. They must be impartial, or recuse themselves.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (02-02-2015, 06:58 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Because Justices don't just help people they like, if they ever find them in Court. They must be impartial, or recuse themselves. That's the point so why can't they join parties? I don't think its a crime to say I support the ideas of this party. Off topic did you get my PM? Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice
Because it creates a conflict of interest. It's fine is a Justice sympathizes with a party, that is natural, and that Justice could try to be impartial, but I sure wouldn't want to have Justice X of the Pie Party ruling on Cake Party v. Pie Party.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (02-02-2015, 12:51 PM)Unibot Wrote:(02-02-2015, 12:27 PM)Awe Wrote: As a sitting Justice, I would amend the clause to I think a method similar to jury selection can be used, where if the Defence or Prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that a CoI is present, then an undue influence is deemed to have affected a Justice in the discharge of his duties. (02-02-2015, 07:03 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Because it creates a conflict of interest. It's fine is a Justice sympathizes with a party, that is natural, but that Justice could try to be impartial, but I sure wouldn't want to have Justice X of the Pie Party ruling on Cake Party v. Pie Party. I get and agree with some of what you are saying but at the end of the day if Justice X supports the Pie Party but he can't join it he will still be more helpful to the Pie Party than he will be with the Cake Party. Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice
Justices Awe and Farengeto will correct me, but the Court would not engage in such behaviour of favouritism, so far as I know.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (02-02-2015, 07:17 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Justices Awe and Farengeto will correct me, but the Court would not engage in such behaviour of favouritism, so far as I know. I almost feel like giving up. Why if the Court does not engage in favouritism is it wrong for a member of the court to be a member of a political party? They won't help that party out if they could as they would not engage in favouritism. Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice (02-02-2015, 07:28 PM)Punchwood Wrote:(02-02-2015, 07:17 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Justices Awe and Farengeto will correct me, but the Court would not engage in such behaviour of favouritism, so far as I know. It is not wrong for Justices to have political interests. However, it is wrong for Justices to act on a case where political interests interfere with duties of being a Justice. There is a conflict of interest present |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |