Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 04-16-2014, 02:34 PM

The most important task the High Court faces over the next few months is, unquestionably, creating a set of court procedures for criminal cases. This will have lasting influence and, if done badly, could quite easily lead to a TNP style situation where the judicial system becomes functionally inoperative. This is a task I think I am particularly suited to, due to my technical knowledge of the law. We need to establish a set of procedures that are consistent, just and simple, that will provide swift justice whilst preventing abuse of the judicial system. That would obviously be my first priority.

More broadly, I would describe my judicial philosophy as being based primarily in Textualism. The role of the judiciary in our system is clearly and unambiguously limited to interpretation and implementation; legislative power is reserved to the Assembly. I am deeply suspicious of attempts to 'interpret' the law according to original intent, and heavily opposed to judicial activist attempts to 'improve' the law or 'bring it up to date'. In my experience these ultimately represent - intentionally or otherwise - efforts to make the law match the jurists own preferences, rather than an objective reading of it. The Charter and Code of Laws should be interpreted literally in accordance with the wording, and any issues this creates resolved by the Assembly. That means they should not be read expansively - any particular clause means only what it says, and does contain within it anything else. For example, a right to freedom of expression guarantees only the right to expression, and must not be interpreted as also producing a right to association.

I'm generally respectful of both precedent and convention, but I do not believe either hold legal weight. However, I would be inclined to take them into account when making a ruling if multiple readings of the law were possible; when faced with a number of possibilities, all that can be supported by a textual reading of the law, I would go with the one that has been generally applied or used in the past.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Escade · 04-16-2014, 05:23 PM

"Should be interpreted literally in accordance with the wording,"

What if there is an error in the law (such as the few errors that were caught or made last term), or if there is an ambiguous statement?

In the case that multiple interpretations are possible, what is the best recourse for the judiciary? Do they suggest a revision of the text for the Assembly or?

What do you see as a potential case that the judiciary might see this term?

I do agree that you are very good at writing legislation.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

**Belschaft** · 04-17-2014, 02:40 PM

(04-16-2014, 05:23 PM)Escade Wrote: "Should be interpreted literally in accordance with the wording,"

What if there is an error in the law (such as the few errors that were caught or made last term), or if there is an ambiguous statement?

If there is an error in the law then that is a matter for the Assembly to resolve. The Judiciary does not have the power to alter the Charter or Code of Laws, and should not make use of non-textual readings of the law to resolve issues. The law is what the law says it is, and in cases where that causes issues then the Assembly has the power to resolve them.

Where the language is ambiguous then there is room for interpretation; one example would be the definition of resident and reside in the Bill of Rights. There is no clear definition of either, and it would be up to the Judiciary to determine who is or isn't a resident in regards to BoR issues. My personal view is that the definition should be limited; I do not believe that the simple act of having a nation in TSP is sufficient to qualify as a resident, for such a definition would cover raiders, foreign officials, recruiters/ad-spammers, and so forth. It's in areas like this, where a purely textual reading isn't possible, that concepts such as originalism or purposivism have value, and I would be willing to make use of them. Ultimately, however, I think a textual reading is the only sound basis for Judicial interpretation. Sometimes the law may be so written that it doesn't do what it intended or achieve the purpose it was created for, but the Judiciary shouldn't involve itself in trying to resolve such matters. It should make clear what the law is, explain why this is the case, and then refer the matter to the proper legislative authority should alteration be required. The alternative is that the Judiciary begins legislating from the bench, which is a very bad idea.

(04-16-2014, 05:23 PM)Escade Wrote: In the case that multiple interpretations are possible, what is the best recourse for the judiciary? Do they suggest a revision of the text for the Assembly or?

It is in cases where multiple interpretations are possible that the power of judicial review should be used; if there is only one possible interpretation then there is no need for the process. Depending on the nature of the matter a Judicial ruling may or may not be sufficient; where the reality of the law clearly does not meet with the intent and purpose of it I would be inclined to suggest new language to the Assembly that would meet such. In cases where the language is sufficiently ambiguous that the Judicial ruling is one of several that the Judiciary could have come to I believe that such revisions would be required. Should there be, in the minds of the Judiciary, only one possible interpretation of the law then I do not believe revision would be necessary.

(04-16-2014, 05:23 PM)Escade Wrote: What do you see as a potential case that the judiciary might see this term?

I think that it is most likely that we will face issues relating to the interactions between the practical realities of forum administration in an online community and the Bill or Rights. The amendment to Article 8 of the Charter that I wrote and is set to pass shortly mandates that Moderation Policies and Administration Procedures must be created and presented to the Assembly; this, to my mind, makes such documents subsidiary to the Charter (as the Charter mandates their existence) and I would be inclined to uphold the BoR over them.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Escade · 04-17-2014, 03:25 PM

Thank you for answering my questions. I may not always agree with your views but I'm happy to see you running for this position. Good luck!

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest