| Permanent Justice Appointment |
|
Hello all,
First, I want to thank the Cabinet for giving me the chance to come before you, the Assembly, as a potential Permanent Justice. I would also like to appreciate the points that various Assembly members have brought up. The position of Permanent Justice, even if it may be short depending on the Great Council, is indeed an important one. All the arguments brought forward are valid arguments, and I will answer them point for point. I shall follow up after with my answers to GR’s questions, and a closing statement. Temperament I realize my post in my special election MoFA campaign and the thread that I wrote to Punchwood, which has now been hidden, were against what I normally strive for. Normally, I like to keep my opinions out of regional politics, focusing more on the arguments and issues presented forward and making a decision or an argument of my own based on those arguments. My post in my campaign thread was not meant to be in any angry voice. In was a culmination of observations I have noticed over the extent of recent events. The post was to hand out my opinions on what I have been noticing. I did not quit the MoFA race because I was angry, I left because I did not believe the race would focus on Foreign Affairs itself. My concern was the elected official, be it myself or otherwise, would not be elected due to the quality of the candidates for the position itself but the circumstances surrounding outside circumstances. My post against Punchwood was wrong. I am not afraid to admit that. I have apologized to Punchwood personally and sincerely since then. I am not afraid to do it again, right here. I know when I am wrong, and Punchwood did not deserve what I have done. For that I do apologize. I did not need to subject the reason to such an attitude either. There is no real justification I can give for what I have done. I can only ask the region to accept that I can make mistakes. I am not perfect, and although I do not let my emotions cloud my judgement or actions, it happened. Activity I did not run for Delegate for reasons that, during the first term of the Delegacy, I was not sure I could perform the duties that the Delegate needs to do. However, I did run for the position of Foreign Affairs; a position that, arguably, needs a highly active member leading the ministry. I resigned from the position of Foreign Affairs not because of time-management issues, but for other personal issues. Issues that I believed that would cloud my judgement as an elected official. I decided to step down to allow another member of the community take my place as I worked on what I was dealing with at the time. My dropping out of the MoFA race, as explained above, was not meant to be against TSP-culture as a whole, but the observations I had. It had nothing to do with my activity around the region. Experience I have sat on Spiritus’ Regional Assembly for many terms. I have been a part of the law creation process. Debating and helping to draft laws was once something I volunteered to do, and would continue doing if given the chance. I was even elected as a Speaker for a time. Now, the obvious. No I do not have judicial experience. My focus in TSP was the executive, for I felt it was the best way I could help and offer my services. What I can bring to the position is an ability to not only read and interpret laws, but also read and interpret arguments presented before me without prejudice on who is presenting the argument. I have openly said previously that I prefer listening to the argument, and basing either a counter-argument or my own argument off what is presented before me, not whom. I feel this is an important aspect for anyone trying for a position that requires careful attention to details and wording or various laws and arguments. What is your judicial philosophy?/ What matters more: the strict wording of the law, its plain meaning, or legislative intent? These two questions fall nearly in the same category, so I shall answer them at the same time. In the judiciary, I believe that laws cannot simply be read as black and white. I have had much thought on this matter after I recused myself from the last court case. The laws are there for a reason, that I can agree with. But I also think that taking into consideration the situation presented against the law must also be taken into account. There are situations where one must understand the intent of the case in question, and interpret the meaning of the written law. What are some examples of when you had to exercise legal judgment -- interpreting the law -- in your roles as a government official? Can you describe your process? Honestly, there was no moment, to my recollection, where I needed to exercise legal judgement in my roles as a government official. However, I was working on treaty drafts which require a certain knowledge of properly worded documents. I would always work on a draft, and ensure the wording in that draft was appropriate. With most of my larger posts around NationStates; I prefer to work in a draft and ensure I am clear about what I want to say. I would imagine, had the opportunity ever arose, that I would follow the same method. If there is intense pressure on you during a high-profile case, how do you think you will handle that pressure? Are you prepared to have to regularly defend your impartiality and professionalism against claims of bias and corruption? How well do you fare generally is fights like these? I would remain calm . I have learned much in the last few weeks. Things I have not thought of before. If this question came up before the previous events, I would have answered I ‘believe’ instead of ‘I would’; not having been in a situation that had intense pressure on my own person I would not have the confidence in that answer as I do now. I had my moment, realized how silly I was when it happened, and realize my mistakes. Mistakes I will not make again. I am. There is not much I can answer this question with more than that. However, I will not be upset if there is a call for me to recuse myself if (under the current system) one of my motions is appealed. If one of the appellate justices agree to the appeal, then I hold no animosity to the one making the appeal and the justice who agreed to the appeal. It is their right to do so, and should be respected as such. I suppose my nomination thread is an example of your final question. This is how I would fare in fights like these. I will take all arguments against and give my opinion. As is this current situation, where a call to a disapproval has already been made, I hold no animosity to members of the community that believe that I am not fit for the job. That is their opinion, and I respect that. The best I can do in situations such as these is answer any questions or concerns that arise and explain myself clearly and honestly. If my arguments are not satisfactory, or if an individual is set on their decision, then that is just how it is. In closing, I would like to thank everyone in this thread for their posts. For or against, any issues or questions brought up to me I will answer honestly. All the arguments that are presented, no matter who posted them, I will answer. If there is a belief that my answer is insufficient, then I will clarify as best as I can. This attitude is something I wish to bring to the position of Justice, and one I promise to keep if the Assembly will allow me to take the mantle.
(02-26-2016, 09:15 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I see several people talking about how they don't think that Feir has the qualities needed for the role, but no real detail about what they think the needed qualities are. Could we get that? Sure. This is what I look for in a Justice: 1. Legal acumen and philosophy. Has the nominee demonstrated a command of our laws? If not, do they have experience in their real life or other games/parts of NS that show an ability to analyze legal arguments? I don't like justices who have a very basic approach to legal interpretation, and certainly a strict constructionist viewpoint would be disqualifying. (Unfortunately, it's an approach *most* players tend to have, even going back to my days in the WA.) 2. Fortitude. Is the nominee battle-tested, or will they frustrate easily under a high stress legal case? 3. Activity and participation. Is the nominee active in regional politics? How long have they been a TSPer? Do they have experience in writing or debating laws in the Assembly? If they are a career politician, have they shown an ability to cast aside tribal politics when objectivity is needed? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thank you for taking your time to deliver a thoughtful response to my questions, Feir.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I will support the cabinet's nominee, Feirmont, as a permanent justice.
Feirmonts thread to Punchwood and withdrawal from the MoFA race was regrettable, but not unexpected due to the toxicity of the forum at the time. However, we shouldn't allow mistakes to dictate ones current affairs at this time. Feirmont's thoughtful response has shown that he has learned from his "mistakes" and is striving to be an impartial judge, and not hold animosity to those who appeal his rulings or accuse him of corruption. (at least that's how I interpret his texts) As such I reiterate my support for the nominee and will vote against a motion to disapprove Feirmont's confirmation at this time.
I appreciate Feirmont's thorough and honest response, but as a note for the Chair, my motion for a disapproval vote stands. Whether it passes or fails, given that reservations about the nominee have been expressed, I think a vote is important.
(02-26-2016, 07:41 PM)HEM Wrote:(02-26-2016, 07:14 PM)Cormac Wrote:(02-26-2016, 11:02 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: With regard to "being combative" as you've deemed it, I'd take some of these charges more seriously if we were discussing Feir from a unbiased and open place. GR has clearly nominated himself for the role after going on an offense when Far was nominated as justice the last time. And, your first post you not only flatly rejected the nominee but then advocated for your own preferred candidate. Neither of you came to the table even willing to consider the nominee. I will be putting up a vote for the disapproval motion after the three day debate period has elapsed. Accordingly, the three day debate period will conclude Monday, Feb 29.
I greatly appreciate the nominee's answers. They shed a lot of light for me, and I am currently inclined to vote in the affirmative for their confirmation (though I agree that a vote should be held).
Formerly Relevant, Currently Former.
Given that the prerequisite 3 day debate period has now elapsed, this is now up for vote
I've spent a certain amount of time considering this, and I'm inclined to support this nomination. While Feirmont may not be the most accomplished or knowledge judicial mind in TSP, he possess two qualities that I think are vital for this role; integrity and impartiality. In a community of this size, where personal relations and reputations are vital, a justice must be viewed to have a high level of personal integrity and to be a impartial, non-partisan figure. If they are not considered to be such a figure then they will not be respected, and nor will their rulings. Feirmont meets both of these requirements.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png) |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Previous Positions
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |