| Permanent Justice Appointment |
On Behalf of the Cabinet, we would like to submit Farengeto as our nominee for the Permanent Justice vacancy.
Quote:Section 1 - Cabinet Appointment Farengeto has served as Permanent Justice on multiple occasions in the past, as well as on the Pool of Justices. He currently serves the region as a member of the Council on Regional Security, and previously as Chair of the Assembly, Minister of Regional Affairs, and Minister of Foreign Affairs. Quote:Section 2 - Assembly Disapproval This Thread will remain open for a minimum of three days, as per above. Unless a disapproval vote is initiated, at the end of the three day period Farengeto will be considered accepted as Permanent Justice of The South Pacific. I will now open the floor for debate. Semi-Unretired
I have no issues or questions in regards to this nomination. I have worked with Farengeto in the past, and know him to be a thoroughly competent and objective individual. He will make an excellent Permanent Justice.
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)
Personally, ss Farengeto is both a member of the Council for Regional Security and a member of The Island League, I see huge conflicts on interest considering a wide variety of ruling. Anything laws the TIL drafts, any members of the TIL who file complaints or anything regarding the CRS would need to be ruled on by someone else.
As such, I'm interested in what the plans are for cases where Far must excuse himself?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Ideally a permanent justice shouldn't have many conflicts of interest or be politicized or hold other multiple positions and should be able to parse through legislation. I'm sure Farengeto can do the latter, it's the former that may need to be discussed further.
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
Given how Farengeto is one of the most experienced judges in the region, and further given the difficult cases that he has admirably decided in the past, I have no concerns about this nomination. He has proven to be fair and level headed when deciding cases, never letting his personal associations or private opinions get in the way of what the law requires.
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
I want to make it clear that while I've approved of Far in the past, since the development of political parties, we have new considerations we need to deal with.
As Escade pointed out, it's not longer matter of solely who can do the job, but rather, the appearance of impropriety. Our last two justices (Raven and Feir) were not part of political parties. This is new territory and I think we need to consider these implications before rubbing stamping this nomination because we like Far.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Having read over Farengeto's history both judicially and on other matters within The South Pacific, I think he will make a fantastic Permanent Justice and is one of the most qualified nominees possible for the job. Full support.
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) 
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
I agree with some of the fears people are raising based on party allegiance and CRS membership. I would like to know how Far plans on ensuring he has no conflicting interests between him and his party. As this is uncharted territory I think it is vital we know how he would keep himself unbiased and maintain the sanctity of the High Court. I recognize we have mechanisms in place for CRS CoI's and I would be interested in hearing how Far would ensure those are implemented appropriately.
(This is me being CoA): We are required to hold three days of debate as per the Judiciary Act. Assuming in my judgment, as per the Charter Article IV Section 5, sufficient debate has occurred (I'm 99% sure it will) and there has not been a motion and a second for a vote on the nominee, the nominee will stand confirmed. Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
(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. 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.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |