| Justices and Political Parties |
How about something like this:
No Court Justice shall be prohibited from seeking and/or maintaining membership in any group or organization duly created under the codes and laws of The South Pacific, provided that said Justice adhere to certain regulations, to wit: 1. A Justice of the Court shall, at all times material hereto, remain objective in the administration of his or her duties and in the hearing of cases presented before the Court. 2. Should any party of a case currently before the Court be a group or organization of which the Justice is a member, the Justice shall be recused upon proper motion for recusal. 3. Motions for recusal may be proffered, sua sponte, by the Justice's own volition, upon a motion by another sitting Justice, or upon a motion by any party to the case at issue. I imagine my suggestion isn't perfect, but could something like this function as a viable compromise?
Turtles all the way down.
Uh… none of us are law students, so we don't understand legal terms. Plain English would work best.
(02-03-2015, 12:34 AM)Awe Wrote: Uh… none of us are law students, so we don't understand legal terms. Plain English would work best. Oops, sorry, didn't mean to confuse. Sua sponte is latin for "of his or her own accord". That's the only thing that jumps out to me in terms of legalese, but if I'm making an unreadable mess, just let me know. I'm just trying to create a middle ground, where justices could join whatever they wanted, but if a group they are involved in is in a case that is being ruled on, there is some sort of protection from bias or partiality. So, if Cake Party v. Pie Party is presented to the Court when Justice X of the Cake Party is presiding, anybody directly involved with the case - meaning Justice X him/herself, another Justice, or the Pie Party can ask that Justice X be recused from ruling on the case so that objectivity is preserved in deciding the outcome.
Turtles all the way down.
I would hope Justice X would recuse themselves in that situation without needing to be asked.
(02-03-2015, 12:46 AM)Archerinia Wrote:(02-03-2015, 12:34 AM)Awe Wrote: Uh… none of us are law students, so we don't understand legal terms. Plain English would work best. That is of course, our objective, but how do we convey it in such a manner understandable by all? (02-03-2015, 01:40 AM)Aramanchovia Wrote: I would hope Justice X would recuse themselves in that situation without needing to be asked. I would most definitely agree with that. Being a Justice shouldn't be a gag on participation in the discussions of the forum but when a Justice is hearing a case they need to be mindful to the perception of bias. I do wonder if an expanded Conflict of Interest statement might be part of the answer with a Justice required to publicly list all the groups they are a part of or within (x) months were a member of? For example, if you left the Cake Party to stand for election as a Justice I think it would have benefit to have a declaration saying that you were a former member of the Cake Party. That way, if a case involving the Cake or Pie parties come to court we'd all know that Justice X was a former 'Grand Frosting' of the Cake Party. I do however, believe there should a statute of limitations on how far back a disclosure should go. My personal opinion would be that a sitting Justice should not be a member of a political party in TSP. I would actually go a little further than saying a sitting Justice shouldn't belong to a political party. I would advocate that they should refrain from 'participating in party political activities or publicly expressing support for a political party'.
(02-03-2015, 01:40 AM)Aramanchovia Wrote: I would hope Justice X would recuse themselves in that situation without needing to be asked. I would hope that too, but isn't the point to have some sort of mechanism in case one day one of them doesn't? (02-03-2015, 03:21 AM)Awe Wrote:(02-03-2015, 12:46 AM)Archerinia Wrote:(02-03-2015, 12:34 AM)Awe Wrote: Uh… none of us are law students, so we don't understand legal terms. Plain English would work best. Is the way I wrote it not understandable? Which parts?
Turtles all the way down.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |