| Amendment to Article 7.1 of the Elections Act |
|
I propose the following amendment regarding separation of powers in the Elections Act, in light of the fact that the structure of our Court system has changed
Quote:(1) Offices of the Coalition are the Delegate, the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers, the Chair of the Assembly, Local Councillors, the Permanent Justice Justices of the High Court, and any of their appointed deputies. I would also like to seek a waiver of the minimum debate period if my fellow Legislators will so consent.
It should be pointed out that one of the explicit purposes of Roavin’s judicial reform was to *get rid of* a firewall between junior/associate justices and Cabinet position.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm good with allowing the chair to make these types of changes without a vote. We obviously voted to pass this change, whether it was noted in the original topic or not.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium (06-06-2018, 09:37 AM)Rebeltopia Wrote: I'm good with allowing the chair to make these types of changes without a vote. We obviously voted to pass this change, whether it was noted in the original topic or not. I proposed this amendment because if the Chair were to amend it, they would only amend it to Chief Justice, which is the equivalent office for the Permanent Justice in our current court system. Justices of the High Court would also include Associate Justices as well as the Chief Justice.
As per Legislature Procedure Act 2.7, I object to the motion to waive debate time.
It was the intent of the Judicial Act that the Chief Justice remains firewalled, but the Associate Justices are not firewalled, as was discussed multiple times in the debate thread. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
It was discussed Roa, but that doesn’t mean we all agreed with it; it’s possible to vote for a proposal without supporting every part of it. I think it’s appropriate to have a proper debate over this, so I don’t support the waiver motion - TSP isn’t going to collapse if we don’t handle this right now.
That said, I don’t think anyone (with the possible exception of Roa & Glen) had someone serving as a Justice and PM at the same time in mind when the law was changed; that is certainly not something I would have supported, and do not support. It’s also not something Glen has historically supported - I remember coming under a rather vicious attack from him and others when I tried to hold two offices at the same time back in 2016. I see three viable ways forward here; 1. The law be amended to firewall all Justices 2. The law be amended to change how the firewall works, so that Justices could not serve in some roles but could serve in other roles - this could be done for other offices as well (ie; Local Councillor and Deputy MoFA okay, Local Councillor and CoA not okay) 3. The law be amended so that whilst serving in a firewalled office an appointed official is “on leave” - see TNP for this, where Delegates cannot be admins or security council members and thus go own leave - whilst holding such, before resuming their appointment 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)
I think the third option is interesting, though I’d oppose the idea that forum admins can’t hold other active offices. In real life, at least in my home state, judges can go on what’s called “per diem” duty after mandatory retirement, where they basically just pick up the slack of other judges.
Keeping in mind that literally half of entire reform was to *prevent* the problem of not having any good judicial candidates because the people with experience also tend to run for other offices... We could have a system where the associate justice has emeritus status and only handles cases when a) nobody is available, and b) it doesn’t implicate whatever other branch they’re serving in. At the end of the day, it’s very clear and obvious that we can’t completely firewall the court *and* have a multi-justice bench. It didn’t work before, and the pool of justice system that was firewalled didn’t work either. This is one of those areas where we have to face the realities of the game and be more pragmatic rather than idealist. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think my third suggestion is the best as well, and can draft something if I can find a spare half hour.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
I'll be honest in that I haven't really been following the court debate ... but having people "go on leave" seems counter productive here.
I mean, if we felt the need to appoint two associate justices and one of them goes on "leave" we only have one associate justice ... so did we need two in the first place?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
It would allow someone holding an appointed position to take up an elected one for a period of time, without resigning the appointed post. That would prevent us from going through an entirely new appointment process, which can take months.
It wouldn't work if every justice wanted to run for elected office, or if someone wanted to do multiple terms, but it would allow shorter absences. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |