(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.

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)

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.