Users browsing this thread:

**Beepee** · 04-05-2019, 07:42 AM

Oh, we are very thankful for the work you and Kris do Bels.

Check my links.....

SWAN 4 Life
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1086117

**Rebeltopia** · 04-05-2019, 08:54 AM

(04-04-2019, 09:44 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I have no idea why either of them would want to do this horrible and thankless job, but Rebs and Awe will both be okay at it. Awe was overly inclined to make things up on the basis of whatever he felt was the “spirit” of the law, but maybe that’s what is needed currently.

Because the two of you need the help. Like I said before, Kris has sand multiple time hes burnt out, and I know you feel the same way. A larger pool will result in a lighter load per Justice, and that should help with the burn out and shitstorms.

"...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

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

Quotes

Awe · 04-05-2019, 11:29 PM

Apologies for the delay in getting to your questions, have been busy with uni and down with a fever. In between the drowsy meds though, I decided to take the time to answer your questions (this is clearly a brilliant idea)

(04-01-2019, 11:58 PM)Bzerneleg Wrote: Is it possible if both nominees put their CoI disclosure here?

Current WA nation: Awesomiasa
All current and previous aliases: Awesomiasa II, Kantrinios, Doctrinia (All CTEd)
Current active regions/organizations and roles: The South Pacific (Legislator)
Past regions/organizations: The North Pacific, Balder, The East Pacific, Alexandria

I have a question that I like to ask both nominees:

What is your position on the issue of giving the High Court the power to make plea deals?
I think that if the High Court wants the power to make plea deals, then it should be something that is codified in law, and offered to all persons charged with crimes, rather than having the Court take controversial liberties with the law. At this point, I will have to further examine the reasons behind why the Court has made such a decision, be it out of expediency or indeed misreading the law.

How will you ensure that your personal political views do not affect your decisions as Justice?
I think it is impossible to expect a Justice to be completely apolitical. However I'd suggest that the Justices can act as checks and balances on one another, to ensure that whatever outcome is reached in a case is based on legal merit, and not driven by bias.

(04-02-2019, 10:36 AM)Bzerneleg Wrote: 1. There have been minor discussions throughout the years about a Low Court. That idea has recently re-emerged due to concerns on the unusually heavy workload of the High Court. However, in my opinion, I am worried that the establishment of a Low Court would be excessive and overly bureaucratic. What are your views on creating a Low Court?
It depends on what the functions of the Low Court will be. If the function of the Low Court is to act as a court of first instance, then I do agree that it will be rather bureaucratic. However, if the Low Court is, as Kris had clarified on Discord, a place for mock cases, then I'll be willing to explore the merits of having such an institution.

2. Do you personally believe that the High Court is subconsciously getting more political? If so, what do you think is the reason behind it and how do you plan on solving it? If not, could you please provide an explanation to your answer?
Like I've mentioned above, I believe that it is impossible for any member of the Court to be completely apolitical, and that Justices will need to act as checks and balances on one another to prevent the formation of a "hive mind", if I may so put it. I believe that the Court may have had a veneer of politicisation to it due to the inherently political nature of the questions and cases that has been put to it in recent times.

3. Do you agree with me that the High Court's recent errors regarding the judicial process, including the sentencing of Concrete Slab in New Haudenosaunee Confederacy v. Concrete Slab, are due to an unexpected surge in the workload of the Justices and a pressure on them to make fast but sloppy decisions?
I'd agree that the Courts recent procedural missteps are as a result of a surge in workload, but I'd stop short of agreeing that the decisions made were sloppy. I think there's a need on the part of the Assembly to clarify what the sentencing stage would entail, since it is not currently codified, and whether there is indeed a need for the sentencing stage to be distinguished from the verdict.

4. Should candidates be given repercussions for unintentionally making a mistake on their Conflict of Interest disclosure?
I think it's up to the discretion of the Election Commissioner to allow candidates to correct their CoI disclosures if they have made unintentional mistakes. It will only become a matter before the Court if a candidate were to wilfully withhold or otherwise misrepresent information in their CoI disclosures that will affect their standing in elections.

(04-03-2019, 12:56 AM)Nat Wrote: Questions for Awe

Question 1

In your application, you stated that:

"I believe the spirit of the law should be upheld over the letter of the law, unless it is apparent that the following the letter of the law will result in the most appropriate outcome in one's reading of the law."

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by the most appropriate outcome in one's reading of the law?
I believe I should have been more meticulous with my choice of words there, and thus I would suggest that "appropriate" in this instance would suggest a reading that is reasonable or obvious. If the letter of the law would provide for a reasonable conclusion that can be reached, then it would be unwise to continue considering the spirit of the law.

Question 2

In your application, you stated (regarding determining probable cause) that:

"The Court should consider the motivations behind the Petitioner's filing of such cases."

How would you approach a case which has factual merit but is presented for a nefarious reason? For example, if an election candidate sought to convict and ban their electoral opponent from office.
I would confer with my fellow Justices on the justiciability of the case. But if the case leads to the Court's impartiality being compromised, then I'd recommend that the Court not take on the case.

Question 3

In your application, you also stated (regarding determining probable cause) that:

"The Court should also consider whether circumstantial evidence, insofar as is available to the Court, merits the filing of criminal charges."

Can you please elaborate on what standard of proof merits the filing of criminal charges?
I'd suggest that the Petitioner, in providing evidence to the Court, must be able to justify how and why the evidence provided suggests a criminal offence. Otherwise, the Petitioner would merely be filing a straw man argument before the Court with no merit.

Thank you for the questions thus far.

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league

Former Offices

RP Information

(This post was last modified: 04-05-2019, 11:31 PM by Awe.)

***Roavin*** · 04-07-2019, 02:48 PM

Now that both candidates have answered questions, motion.

North Prarie · 04-07-2019, 02:50 PM

I second this motion.

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

Bzerneleg · 04-08-2019, 11:28 AM

8 APRIL 2019

Legislators,

Please be advised that the votes to nominate Rebeltopia and Awe have been opened. The votes have been designated in the Assembly's official record as CN1901 and CN1902, respectively.

The vote will end on the 11^th of April, 2019, at 08:00 a.m. (UTC).

Bzerneleg · 04-11-2019, 01:04 PM

NOMINATIONS PASSED

11 April 2019

(CN1901 & CN1902)

Legislators,

Please be advised that the votes to nominate @Rebeltopia and @Awe have passed.

To access the voting thread of Rebeltopia (CN1901), click here.

To access the voting thread of Awe (CN1902), click here.

The final tally for CN1901 is 30 in favour, 0 in opposition, with 6 abstaining, for a total of 36 votes.

The final tally for CN1902 is 23 in favour, 2 in opposition, with 11 abstaining, for a total of 36 votes.

CN1901 and CN1902 was passed with 100% and 92% voting in favour accordingly, exceeding the requirement for a simple majority of those voting with the exclusion of abstentions.

A spreadsheet of the vote breakdown will be available soon for your convenience.