It has been brought to the attention of myself that the following is true:

1. We have no procedure for selecting a Permanent Justice
   
2. The Court Procedure Act mentions there are qualifications for being Permanent Justice but they don't exist in our laws.
   
3. Beyond nominating Pool Justices there is no way to confirm them under current law.
   

Thus I submit the Following amendment to the Court Procedure Act:

2. Pool of Justices

(1) The Pool of Justices comprises at least four individuals to serve as temporary and appellate Justices when appointed. The Pool of Justices must be posted publically.

(2) The Permanent Justice and the Cabinet will work in close cooperation to nominate willing and capable individuals to serve on the Pool. Justices in the Pool of Justices must meet the same requirements as the Permanent Justice.

(3) Nominees to the Pool of Justices must be confirmed by a 50%+1 vote in favor of their appointment by the Assembly. This vote will be held for a minimum of 5 days.

(4) Selection from the Pool of Justices will occur in order of seniority in the Pool. If there are no further Justices on the Pool, more Justices are appointed as required with all deliberate speed.

The reason I do 5 days is that since the court rules on questions to the Charter and on the legality of constitutional laws it seems fitting that the confirmation last as long as the voting time on the laws they will be ruling on. 

I would like the Assembly has whole though to determine what qualifications Justices must have, and how to select a Permanent Justice.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

(This post was last modified: 07-24-2016, 03:14 PM by Omega.)

Reply

Speaking only on the third part, it is currently set up as intended. The pool of justices is not an actual position that you can be confirmed for, 95% of the time none of them will ever do anything and a member of it can be on the list for years and do nothing with it. The point of the pool is to be a list of candidates nominated by the government to replace the Permanent Justice in special circumstances. There's no point in making a vote to confirm someone to a non-position, and the proposed vote only adds politicization to what is supposed to be an apolitical system.

Reply

1. We have no procedure for selecting a Permanent Justice
   
2. The Court Procedure Act mentions there are qualifications for being Permanent Justice but they don't exist in our laws.
   
3. Beyond nominating Pool Justices there is no way to confirm them under current law.
   

1. True. I propose that the permanent justice is the justice on the pool with the most seniority; in case of a tie, the Cabinet or Assembly (pick one) breaks the tie.

2. The requirements may not be explicitly listed but that's not a problem. That line basically just states in a roundabout way that the eligibility requirements for pool justice and permanent justice are the same.

3. Basically, I agree with Farengeto. The law could be worded better, however.

Reply

The method of selecting a Permanent Justice and filling the Pool of Justices was not supposed to change from the Great Council, as judicial reform was voted down during the Identification of Problems section. It just accidentally got left out of the Court Procedures Act.

In fact, I'm not even sure if I was supposed to archive this law in the first place: http://tspforums.xyz/thread-3442.html

I strongly oppose any affirmative vote in the Assembly to appoint the Permanent Justice. That turns the entire thing into a popularity contest, whereas a disapproval vote changes the frame to whether or not somebody is truly unacceptable.

Actually, I think the best course of action here is to simply re-pass the Judiciary Act.

(This post was last modified: 07-22-2016, 07:31 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

So could we just treat it as though that law was never repealed (which according to you it wasn't)?

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

The method of selecting a Permanent Justice and filling the Pool of Justices was not supposed to change from the Great Council, as judicial reform was voted down during the Identification of Problems section. It just accidentally got left out of the Court Procedures Act.

In fact, I'm not even sure if I was supposed to archive this law in the first place: http://tspforums.xyz/thread-3442.html

I strongly oppose any affirmative vote in the Assembly to appoint the Permanent Justice. That turns the entire thing into a popularity contest, whereas a disapproval vote changes the frame to whether or not somebody is truly unacceptable.

Actually, I think the best course of action here is to simply re-pass the Judiciary Act.

If Judicial Reform was voted down — I think reaffirming the Judiciary Act would be the ideal thing to do. If we didn't think it a problem, why change it?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I agree

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

I move that we readopt the Judiciary Act.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

Basically, it'd be this, which I just updated to reflect the citizen->legislator move.

-----

Judiciary Act

Article 1: Appointment of the Permanent Justice.

Section 1 - Cabinet Appointment
1. The Cabinet is responsible for appointing a well-qualified person to serve as Permanent Justice of the High Court, who has met the requirements for legislator status.
2. When choosing a person to serve, the Cabinet must take into account the trustworthiness, fairness, professionalism, and expertise of their nominee.
3. A majority of the Cabinet must support the nominee.

Section 2 - Assembly Disapproval
1. The Cabinet must submit their nominee to the Assembly, where a three-day debate will commence immediately following the nomination.
2. The Assembly may reject the nominee by passing a disapproval vote with at least three-fourths support of those voting, which must be up for vote for five days.
3. The nomination will be considered accepted upon the conclusion of the debate period, if a disapproval vote is not initiated, or upon the failure of a disapproval vote.

Section 3 - Start of Term

1. The term for the Permanent Justice will begin following the acceptance of their nomination by the Assembly.

Article 2: Legislator Status Requirement

1. In order to serve on the High Court, a person must maintain legislator status in the Assembly of the Coalition of The South Pacific.

Article 3: Separation of Powers

Section 1 - Assembly and Political Participation
1. The Permanent Justice, and members of the Pool of Justices, may exercise their political rights freely.
2. When participating in the Assembly or political organizations, Justices should take care to not act in a way that calls into question the integrity and legitimacy of the High Court.

Section 2 - Executive Firewall
1. No person may sit on the High Court while serving as a Minister, Deputy Minister, or other executive appointment.
2. For the purposes of this section, serving as an officer in the military does not count as serving in an executive capacity, as long as their officer status does not grant them access to privileged Cabinet areas.
3. Membership in the Council on Regional Security does not count as serving in an executive capacity. However, a CRS-member Justice must recuse themselves in cases where the CRS is a party.

Article 4: Pool of Justices

1. The Permanent Justice and the Cabinet shall come together to create a list of at least four well-qualified people to serve as temporary and appellate Justices, who meet the requirements for legislator status.
2. When selecting from the Pool of Justices, selections shall be made according to the date entrants were added.
3. Persons in the Pool of Justices must meet all qualifications to sit as Justice when selected, but do not have to be removed automatically from the Pool upon not meeting those qualifications.
4. The Pool of Justices must be posted publicly.

(This post was last modified: 07-23-2016, 11:53 AM by Awe. Edit Reason: Replaced CSS with CRS )

Reply

Section 2 - Executive Firewall
1. No person may sit on the High Court while serving as a Minister, Deputy Minister, or other executive appointment.
2. For the purposes of this section, serving as an officer in the military does not count as serving in an executive capacity, as long as their officer status does not grant them access to privileged Cabinet areas.
3. Membership in the Council on Regional Security does not count as serving in an executive capacity. However, a CRS-member Justice must recuse themselves in cases where the CRS is a party.

We've changed the name of the CSS, too.

Reply