| Judicial appointments & composition |
I would like to see us abolish judicial elections and move to a system where justices are appointed by the Delegate. These wouldn't be lifetime appointments, but rather we would keep the existing terms. Justices would also still face recalls in the Assembly.
Additionally, I think 4 justices is too many. Ideally, I would like to see us go to a simple panel of 3 justices. Initially cases will be heard by one justice, with appeals heard by the entire bench. This is similar to how multi-judge courts work in real life. I believe it will cut down on the time it takes to reach decisions, and also prevent the need for appointing less-qualified people to the bench just because we need to fill a seat.
Against. I favour an appointment system, but everything else does not need to be changed.
Also, if this resolution passes, will the current bench be removed?
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)
(10-15-2015, 04:45 PM)Ryccia Wrote: Against. I favour an appointment system, but everything else does not need to be changed. Our current judicial system is a mess. Not every case needs to be a constitutional issue, but it becomes one when the entire court must be involved to solve a simple issue that only requires the attention of one justice. It slows everything down unnecessarily. To make things run more smoothly, we only need one justice for most cases. When an appeal is warranted, the rest of the justices can be brought in. This means we don't have to create some complicated rotation system, nor would we run into the problem where all justices end up chiming in on a case, making it impossible for there to be a real appeal. Why do you oppose this idea? I really encourage that people provide more substance with every post during this Great Council, and provide constructive criticism rather than flat out "no"s. (10-15-2015, 04:45 PM)Ryccia Wrote: Also, if this resolution passes, will the current bench be removed? If the Delegate doesn't reappoint them, possibly.
Have low charge, will post later.
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)
So -- I think this has potential, but have two issues/questions.
I don't like the idea of the delegate appointing the court. That seems like it has the potential for abuse. Can we have appointment and approval by the Assembly? Second, I like the one judge followed by appeal. But, then should we still have four? If we only have three, appeals would always be pitting the other two against the initial justice.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I lost my plan when Glen deleted it, but I can give a rough overview of my proposed idea. This is my proposal, based on eight months of service in the courts over three different terms.
1. The Justice is appointed by the assembly. Ultimately it doesn't matter who nominates. As someone who has done court elections three times, they are horrible, overly politicised, impossible to campaign for, and pure popularity contests. 2. Change the terms. The court terms have been a mess. By the end of the term we almost always end up replacing the entirety of the court for some reason or another (new position, inactivity, resignation, etc). And even when we do last a whole term, the position has horrific retention (I may have been the only Justice to run as an incumbent in the past year), once you've out you rarely want back. What I propose is that we remove any kind of fixed term dates for Justices, letting them happen at any time, eliminating the need for appointments to serve a partial term. 3. As an extension to 2, abolish the Judicial term length completely. The Justice will serve until they resign, are recalled, or are otherwise removed. To regulate, reviews and reapproval votes will occur. These can be held at any time, but occur at a MAXIMUM of every six months. How they are called can be discussed (Cabinet, motion/second in assembly, etc). 4. A single permanent Justice. As someone who spent four months as Chief Justice under the current system, all three other Justices are redundant on the average legal question. 90% of the time it's a consensus among all members. The majority of the remaining times are disputes over details. And should all else fail we have appeals for a reason. 5. Additional Justices are appointed as necessary. With the relative unnecessarity of the other justices in legal questions, there is no need to keep them for daily tasks. For criminal cases however (once sufficient evidence is found for a pretrial) three justices are definitely necessary, as is an Appellate Justice for appeals. But appeals and criminal cases happen once a term at most, and trapping individuals for it is pointless. So instead, when the need arises the Chief Justice may nominate a candidate or candidates, which will then be approved and appointed by majority vote of the assembly. They go through the same appointment process, but without tying up TSP citizens in redundant jobless positions. 6. Finally, scrap and rewrite the criminal and penal code. There is a lot long with all parts of this and we'd be better off just redoing everything.
Well, time to do this. You want my criticism, Glen?
1.Appointment by Delegate No. Im against this idea to the fabric of my every being. Such system could lead to corruption and abuse of the system and citizens. Instead, we should have a system similar to the CSS. Someone nominates a person for Court Justice, debate, vote, etc. You know the drill. 2. Limiting terms That is a very good idea. No objections. However, how do we regulate them?(4 months, 6 months, etc.) Also, we should have "renewal" of terms, where the Delegate/Assembly renew the term by approval/vote. I'd say every 6 months. I will not stand for a lifetime term. 3. Four justices is too much Well, Im undecided by this. 4. One justice hears the cases and the other two/three serve as appeals Well, no, as it is being proposed. If this were to work in my opinion, we would need to rotate positions each month so the Justices get their fair share of the job, and the Justices get experience on both fields. If there is no rotation, then I will not go for this proposal. Was this the criticism you were looking for?
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7) Quote:1. The Justice is appointed by the assembly. Ultimately it doesn't matter who nominates. As someone who has done court elections three times, they are horrible, overly politicised, impossible to campaign for, and pure popularity contests.I agree with you. This is a very good idea. Quote:2. Change the terms. The court terms have been a mess. By the end of the term we almost always end up replacing the entirety of the court for some reason or another (new position, inactivity, resignation, etc). And even when we do last a whole term, the position has horrific retention (I may have been the only Justice to run as an incumbent in the past year), once you've out you rarely want back. What I propose is that we remove any kind of fixed term dates for Justices, letting them happen at any time, eliminating the need for appointments to serve a partial term.No. Just no. There needs to be a fixed date for "reapprovals" or whatever we are calling it. The Assembly then either gives the Justice/s another term or they just get kicked out(Like the Election Commission in the Zetaboards forums) Quote:3. As an extension to 2, abolish the Judicial term length completely. The Justice will serve until they resign, are recalled, or are otherwise removed. To regulate, reviews and reapproval votes will occur. These can be held at any time, but occur at a MAXIMUM of every six months. How they are called can be discussed (Cabinet, motion/second in assembly, etc).I kind of agree with you. But instead of being whenever they want, reapprovals should be every six months. Not an option. Mandatory. Quote:4. A single permanent Justice. As someone who spent four months as Chief Justice under the current system, all three other Justices are redundant on the average legal question. 90% of the time it's a consensus among all members. The majority of the remaining times are disputes over details. And should all else fail we have appeals for a reason.No. I will not stand for a permanent Justice. This is not the real world, its NS politics. A life term could mean the entire existance of TSP. Quote:5. Additional Justices are appointed as necessary. With the relative unnecessarity of the other justices in legal questions, there is no need to keep them for daily tasks. For criminal cases however (once sufficient evidence is found for a pretrial) three justices are definitely necessary, as is an Appellate Justice for appeals. But appeals and criminal cases happen once a term at most, and trapping individuals for it is pointless. So instead, when the need arises the Chief Justice may nominate a candidate or candidates, which will then be approved and appointed by majority vote of the assembly. They go through the same appointment process, but without tying up TSP citizens in redundant jobless positions.Not just the Chief Justice. Citizens, Cabinet, etc. should be able to nominate Justices as well. Not just a Chief Justice. Quote:6. Finally, scrap and rewrite the criminal and penal code. There is a lot long with all parts of this and we'd be better off just redoing everything.Why, exactly?
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7) (10-16-2015, 07:42 AM)Ryccia Wrote: No. Just no. There needs to be a fixed date for "reapprovals" or whatever we are calling it. The Assembly then either gives the Justice/s another term or they just get kicked out(Like the Election Commission in the Zetaboards forums)You seem to misunderstand. I merely stated that the terms should start and end at any time. If someoe was appointed now for example, they would serve a full term instead of just serving for the next month. Quote:I kind of agree with you. But instead of being whenever they want, reapprovals should be every six months. Not an option. Mandatory.I in no way suggested they be optional. They can happen at any time (should an issue with the Justice arise before the six months, i.e. breach of conduct), they just need to happen no more than six months after the last one in my example. Quote:No. I will not stand for a permanent Justice. This is not the real world, its NS politics. A life term could mean the entire existance of TSP.Once again, you seem to misunderstand me. I meant permanent in the sense of being the only full time member. Quote:Not just the Chief Justice. Citizens, Cabinet, etc. should be able to nominate Justices as well. Not just a Chief Justice.My reasoning is os that so the Justice may choose who he or she believes is properly qualified, and then the Assembly assures no bias amd such. Quote:Why, exactly?Because have you read it? We have no punishment.
(10-16-2015, 07:30 AM)Ryccia Wrote: 4. One justice hears the cases and the other two/three serve as appeals I figured it would rotate on a specified order. So, if Ryccia got case one, GR would get the next case and so fourth. That seems logical in my book. And I REALLY like the idea of being appointed for a full, longer term, no matter when the term starts. That would really get around the inactivity issue. Moreover, if we do *that* it's likely that different delegates would be nominating justices, thus reducing the ability to stack the court.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Quotes
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |