Users browsing this thread:

**Farengeto** · 04-28-2017, 01:06 PM

We have two different versions in two different laws.

Court Procedures Act Wrote: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) 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.

Judiciary Act Wrote: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.

**Farengeto** · 04-28-2017, 01:23 PM

I don't have much of a preference. We can pick one, reconcile them, or write a newer and better one.

~~Cormac~~ · 04-28-2017, 02:36 PM

I personally think we should only cover this in one law, rather than reconciling them, so we aren't always having to amend two laws whenever we want to amend something regarding the Pool of Justices.

**Farengeto** · 04-28-2017, 04:06 PM

(04-28-2017, 02:36 PM)Cormac Wrote: I personally think we should only cover this in one law, rather than reconciling them, so we aren't always having to amend two laws whenever we want to amend something regarding the Pool of Justices.

If I was a bit ambiguous by "pick one" I meant "repeal one, keep the other unchanged" and "reconcile them" as "keep one law but merge in changes from the other".

Basically the question is if we do a repeal only, a repeal and an amendment, or repeal both and readd somewhere else.

***Roavin*** · 04-28-2017, 08:14 PM

The one in the Court Procedures Act is the newer one, and I don't see anything in the Judicial Act version that isn't already in the former. So I'd be inclined to just remove that part from the Judicial Act.

***Roavin*** · 04-29-2017, 04:29 PM

By the way, this would be fixed by this. Wink