I'm a veteran at campaigns, but this is the first time I find myself running for a judicial position. It's different because I think I'm expected to deliver policy proposals, but the judiciary really isn't a place for that. Instead, it's important to have good qualifications and an ability to show expertise in regional law and customs, or the ability to approach legal issues in a rational and unbiased way.
My first experience with a judiciary in NationStates was when I was a citizen of the Eastern Islands of Dharma, a formerly renowned World Assembly-focused region. I served as Chief Justice. During my tenure, I established the court's rules and heard a couple cases. EID wasn't the most active region, but there were issues from time to time that required legal interpretation.
My experience in the World Assembly was and is so valuable for a position on our judiciary. I have spent countless hours debating and interpreting the WA rule set, and truly influencing how the moderators enforced it. Through reasoned interpretation and debate, I helped establish precedents governing the legality of proposals that stand to this day.
In our judiciary, I would add a level of expertise and professionalism that is much needed. I have been an intensely active citizen of TSP for many years, so I have intimate knowledge of our customs and laws. I served as Chair of the Assembly, so I am very familiar with our Charter and Code of Laws, having helped author some of it myself.
As always, I do believe the best campaigns are those where voters ask questions of the candidates. So I open the floor to those questions. However, I will respectfully decline to answer questions that may compromise the responsibility of a justice to not predetermine any cases that may be before them!
As a Justice I want be supporting anyone and I will be voting by PM. I will ask the same question to anyone who has a campaign thread.
Why do you think you would be best qualified to be a Justice?
What do you think are the best qualities in a Justice? And I recall calling some(or all) of the incumbent Justices unexperienced(I think). If you think they are unexperienced, would you still work with them and respect them like any other Justice TSP has ever had?
Do you feel an appointed justice system is worse than an elected Justice system?
I will ask you some questions that I asked in a different election:
- What inspired you to submit your candidacy for Justice of the High Court?
- You mentioned having good knowledge of our laws and even helping draft some of them. Which section strikes you as most relevant to our region today?
- What is your view of the role of the High Court within our system?
- Do you share the view of some that the High Court is ineffective and lacking in authority? I remember such comments when discussing the powers of the Court to try criminal cases, for instance.
- What are your views regarding the Principle of Assembly Supremacy? Does the Assembly have a legal right to act in all matters where the Charter is silent or does not specifically assign duties to other branches of government?
- Earlier this year we saw a surge in legal questions submitted before the High Court, many asking for answers to political issues, rather than legal issues, others asking about specific cases without referencing the relevant sections of the law. Do you think there should more specific quidelines regarding the issues that legal questions should cover? Should the Court take a narrower view regarding the acceptance of legal questions that fail to meet the necessary format requirements (state the nature of the inquirity, reference relevant sections of the law), even if the underlying issue is one of importance?
@ Punchwood: I'm very qualified for this position because of my experience in the game, along with a demonstrated sense of level-headedness and professionalism. I have a lot of experience in NS legal interpretation, and I have years of citizenship in TSP to know the way our laws are supposed to work.
@ Ryccia: The two most important qualities for a justice to have are professionalism and reason. It's important for justices to convey a sense of integrity, and not lash out at people or show disdain for any cases or people before the court. It's also important for a Justice to be able to reason out the meaning of a law, looking at the text and the intentions.
I would certainly respect the people I work with. They are inexperienced, that's not questionable. But that doesn't mean they're incapable of having the characteristics necessary to make them a good Justice.
@ Henn: I think both have their merits, but in a community as small as ours, an appointed system makes more sense. We have frequent elections, and that creates an incentive to pander.
@ Kris:
1. I thought about running last time, but I believed resigning as EC to run would've been of poor character. I'm inspired to run because I think the court needs somebody with knowledge and experience.
2. I think the most relevant section of our laws today is the ability the Cabinet has to make executive policy. I didn't write this portion, but lately a lot of what's happened policy-wise has been at the executive level. The Assembly can be unruly and the strive for consensus can be a major roadblock to getting things done. But it's unclear just how far the Cabinet can go. As someone who has been in the Cabinet for a long time, the only limit placed upon it is that which Cabinet members set for themselves.
3. The role of the High Court is to settle disputes over interpretations of law. The criminal aspects are of much less importance in practice. People should go to the Court when there's a disagreement over what a law means, because it's sometimes more costly or difficult to try to settle it through the Assembly.
4. The court is fairly powerful, I think. It's ability to issue sentences in criminal cases is far-reaching. As for its ability to enforce civil rulings, I think there is something that can be done to provide more beef, but I'm not sure it's necessary. In the real world, courts can throw you in jail!
5. The Assembly is supreme in that it can alter the Charter at any time in any way it chooses. Power to act on areas not explicitly mentioned is implied because of its plenary law-making abilities. Because we might see a case asking if the Assembly has *exclusive* reserved powers, I think I should decline to answer that.
6. While the court should really encourage people to use proper formats, I don't think it should reject cases because they're not properly formatted. I recognize that not everybody has strong legal writing abilities, and I would want to make sure the court is accessible for everyone. It's the court's responsibility, I think, to ask petitioners to clarify themselves if it's unsure of what's being asked.
Glen,
Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions.