(02-20-2015, 06:39 PM)Hopolis Wrote: 2. Judicial Review has nothing to do with liking or not liking a decision. The quote I used which comes from the UK government pages on Judicial Review (worth a read) specifically states that it has nothing to do with liking or not liking a decision. It is whether the decision was taken lawfully. End of. I would never support the Judiciary being the driving pillar of government in TSP. This Charter doesn't advance such a thing. What it does advance is the judiciary being a balance between the executive and the people.

The problem is there is ALWAYS some room for interpretation if you don't like a decision. 

Hop, here's the problem I have with this Charter in its original form. Having an entirely separate document, called Charter, that moves all relevant articles out of the Charter and the Code of Laws, and significantly expands judicial power, does seem like an attempt to increase the power of the Court, at the expend of the other branches, and on the assumption that they will often try to abuse their power.

Now, I have no doubt that the Court worked hard for this draft, and has the best of intentions. I would be happy to sit down with you, review the draft and come up with some constructive criticism. In fact, I have posted some initial recommendations, a few pages ago. However, this proposal in its original form does concern me, and I think others share that concern as well.

(02-20-2015, 06:58 PM)Unibot Wrote:

(02-20-2015, 06:39 PM)Hopolis Wrote: 2. Judicial Review has nothing to do with liking or not liking a decision. The quote I used which comes from the UK government pages on Judicial Review (worth a read) specifically states that it has nothing to do with liking or not liking a decision. It is whether the decision was taken lawfully. End of. I would never support the Judiciary being the driving pillar of government in TSP. This Charter doesn't advance such a thing. What it does advance is the judiciary being a balance between the executive and the people.

The problem is there is ALWAYS some room for interpretation if you don't like a decision. 

thats always the case in every democracy on earth. why is that such a bad thing? why should the assembly be the final voice on what is and isnt legal?

(02-20-2015, 07:02 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Hop, here's the problem I have with this Charter in its original form. Having an entirely separate document, called Charter, that moves all relevant articles out of the Charter and the Code of Laws, and significantly expands judicial power, does seem like an attempt to increase the power of the Court, at the expend of the other branches, and on the assumption that they will often try to abuse their power.

Now, I have no doubt that the Court worked hard for this draft, and has the best of intentions. I would be happy to sit down with you, review the draft and come up with some constructive criticism. In fact, I have posted some initial recommendations, a few pages ago. However, this proposal in its original form does concern me, and I think others share that concern as well.

Hear, hear.

(02-20-2015, 07:03 PM)Apad Wrote: thats always the case in every democracy on earth. why is that such a bad thing? why should the assembly be the final voice on what is and isnt legal?

Because that is also the case in every democracy, the main power will ALWAYS have the final vote as politicians always find a way. The Assembly should have the final say on everything because it is the sole legislative body in The Coalition. 

(02-20-2015, 07:07 PM)Punchwood Wrote:

(02-20-2015, 07:03 PM)Apad Wrote: thats always the case in every democracy on earth. why is that such a bad thing? why should the assembly be the final voice on what is and isnt legal?

Because that is also the case in every democracy, the main power will ALWAYS have the final vote as politicians always find a way. The Assembly should have the final say on everything because it is the sole legislative body in The Coalition. 

let me get your position straight...the politicians, which is what the assembly is made up of here, always find a way and you want the politicians to have the final say??? makes perfect sense.

(02-20-2015, 06:58 PM)Unibot Wrote:

(02-20-2015, 06:39 PM)Hopolis Wrote: 2. Judicial Review has nothing to do with liking or not liking a decision. The quote I used which comes from the UK government pages on Judicial Review (worth a read) specifically states that it has nothing to do with liking or not liking a decision. It is whether the decision was taken lawfully. End of. I would never support the Judiciary being the driving pillar of government in TSP. This Charter doesn't advance such a thing. What it does advance is the judiciary being a balance between the executive and the people.

The problem is there is ALWAYS some room for interpretation if you don't like a decision. 

I would like to point out the extensive discretionary power the chair has gain under your tenure, to the point that it has the power stop legislation from going to vote if it believes it necessary.

(02-20-2015, 10:13 PM)Farengeto Wrote:

(02-20-2015, 06:58 PM)Unibot Wrote:

(02-20-2015, 06:39 PM)Hopolis Wrote: 2. Judicial Review has nothing to do with liking or not liking a decision. The quote I used which comes from the UK government pages on Judicial Review (worth a read) specifically states that it has nothing to do with liking or not liking a decision. It is whether the decision was taken lawfully. End of. I would never support the Judiciary being the driving pillar of government in TSP. This Charter doesn't advance such a thing. What it does advance is the judiciary being a balance between the executive and the people.

The problem is there is ALWAYS some room for interpretation if you don't like a decision. 

I would like to point out the extensive discretionary power the chair has gain under your tenure, to the point that it has the power stop legislation from going to vote if it believes it necessary.

The chair does not have the legal authority to "stop" legislation from going to vote. The chair does, however, have the legal authority to delay legislation from going to vote if in their discretion, they believe a delay in the process may be advisable. 

I'm not sure what you're implying here, though, Farengeto.

In response to the discussion about having an AG, the Justices did float the idea of having one. However, seeing as our justice system is under-utilised, we thought that the AG would not have much to do anyway, unless the Government would want to have a rotating set of people that can be chosen as AG, which the Court can definitely help with, given that we had had some discussions about reviving the Associate Justice volunteer idea through an Associate Justice Apprenticeship Programme.

Also, I understand there has been doubts regarding the intent of this document, most importantly regarding calling it a 'Charter' and also being worried that the Court will abuse its power etc, especially given the timing that this was posted and in light of the logs that Belschaft has made public. While this can be seen as being rather unfortunate, for lack of a better term, I would like to assure everyone that the Court has no such intent. The Court is ultimately accountable to the people of the South Pacific, and the establishment of this Charter, Legal Code or whatever we'd eventually come to call it, is for the sole purpose of consolidating all legal provisions in one place, and enshrining these provisions as the foundation for the work of the Court. The people have tasked us to enforce and clarify the laws, and that's exactly what we will do. No more, no less. There is no reason for anyone to fear that the Courts will abuse its power or that the Criminal Code will be misused by the Courts etc, because if common sense were to tell you, it is difficult to radicalise 4 people with extremely different thought processes and cultural backgrounds (we're on 4 different continents), and surely that saner minds will prevail. 

The only reason the Criminal and Penal Codes are in this document is as a result of the Court's responsibility to enforce them, not to take these rights away from the people. The same applies for the provision saying that amendments need the support of at least one Justice, simply because the Court is the domain of the Justices, not a political tool for individuals with malicious intent, nor an extension of the power of the Assembly or Executive.

I understand also, that there may be some reservations about the clause that Legal Questions can overturn an Executive or Cabinet decision, but I must clarify that this was not written with any intent to benefit any party. While the Charter does provide the Cabinet with wide-ranging powers, one must also account for the appropriate use of such powers, and this clause, I believe, serves that purpose. The Charter is supreme law, yes, but no one should use such power for political or personal gain. This is not a response to recent events, but more of general trends in the Assembly and in the scope of Legal Questions that the Court Justices have observed. (refer to the last paragraph of this post to see the Court's opinion of this)

With regards to the supremacy of the Charter, it is still uncertain if the provisions currently in the Charter and CoL will be removed (the Justices decided to do this at the last moment), but as Article 15 of this document states, the Charter and CoL will take precedence over the provisions in this document. If the community does not like this document being labelled a Charter, because it's like the Courts are consolidating power, planning a coup or whatnot, then we could call it something else. Allow me to quote a line from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet here, that 'What's in a name? that which we call a rose/ By any other name would smell as sweet;'

I think the problem here is that we all have different ideas of what a Court document is supposed to do. Justices seem to think it should consolidate all Court-related law and establish additional procedures. I for one believe that a Court subsidiary document should simply establish procedures for the treatment of trials and legal questions.

While I dislike real life comparisons, I do feel the need to put as an example a hypothetical attempt to move Article III out of the US Constitution, and create a separate document called 'Constitution of the Supreme Court'. Certainly the intentions would be good, but reactions would not be positive, and people would question why a document meant to simply regulate Court procedure should also include content that belongs in the Constitution. The same thing applies in this particular debate.