| [PASSED] Court Reform - this time for real |
The real questions are: is this a good law? Does it have any weaknesses? Will it lead to any unforeseen consequences?
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (02-17-2018, 02:56 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I mean I was thinking back to the same time period when justices were fall back positions or the one interesting time. More importantly, if you're MoFA and have a portfolio or job to do and you're also an Associate Justice - which takes precedence? Then, why not avoid any potential conflicts that could lead to an associate justice needing to be recused consistently? I think each government position has its own portfolio and enough work to do and if they need more should probably focus on that. This doesn't widen the pool of people who are eligible as it allows a few people to hold multiple positions. Moving backwards to an era where people held multiple positions, and some were treated likes sinecures is something I would warn against. Instead of making it so a few people can hold multiple positions and concentrate power in those hands, we should be creating a system that is sustainable and encourages growth. That has always been a goal and that's why I think Associate Justice should be firewalled. Again the court system exists as a check against the executive and assembly or at least was originally perceived that way. If there is to be overlap between the branches, that limits the branch from standing on its own. Especially from the point of inclusiveness it seems that this would be a move backwards. If we can't find enough people to run for positions then that means we need to reduce the number of positions or reconfigure the roles rather then let people hold multiple roles which doesn't actually encourage the training of new people. Nor does it widen the people as much as it gives fewer opportunities by making it easier for those entrenched in power to take multiple positions. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
The difference between MoFA and AJ, though, is that the AJ position is more reactionary - things are done when needed, unlike the MoFA who will always have something to do. I can think of potential compromises here where an AJ is not firewalled but has, if also holding another position, less standing within the court than an AJ that is not holding another position.
(I suppose that compromise wouldn't help with your sinecure concern though....) We could have an informal poll in the assembly to see if legislators would prefer a firewalled or non-firewalled associate justice. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
By the way, one thing I haven't mentioned before: You may have noticed that an actual indictment cannot be done by an individual. Rather, an individual can only ask a question of the form "was what person X did illegal?"; if the court determines probable cause that there was an actual criminal act, then an indictment occurs. This is very much deliberate.
First, this ensures that when an indictment occurs, it is based on a reasonable standard. In the old laws, the PJ can, as part of the pre-trial phase, decide whether there is sufficient evidence that was presented. In this new system, this is similarly established, except that we now are explicit on the standard of evidence (specifically, "probable cause"), and since we now have an inquisitorial system, it means the justice can beseech that evidence if they don't feel the evidence given establishes probable cause but there is reasonable suspicion to investigate the avenue. The case then serves as a container to see if probable cause can be established or not. Related to this point - I envision a future where preemptive penalties can be granted (for example, suspension of legislator status) in response to criminal proceedings. We kinda have this right now with the Border Control Act, which allows somebody to stay banned only for a certain amount of time unless there is a case opened in the court. In the future, I would bind this to an indictment - if an individual is indicted, then probable cause has been established, and so if the alleged crime warrants it (for example, election fraud in some fashion), then a preemptive penalty is reasonable (for example, suspension of legislator status). Second, this means that we can allow a fast track for institutions that do investigations. Specifically, I'm thinking of a potentially reformed CRS. If the CRS (or whatever replaces it) establishes probable cause and brings that to the court, I see it reasonable for the CRS to be able to fast track to an indictment (including associated preemptive penalties on security grounds). Of course, these things aren't part of what we have or part of this draft, but the framework established here allows us to do these things much easier than ever before if we wanted to.
Sure, a poll would be great.
I think though we're either stating: 1. We have enough members to have 3 appointed AJ's that do not hold any other government position AKA "widening the pool so that there is both more representation of TSPers in government as well as the legislature truly functioning in balance with other branches." 2. We don't have enough members to appoint 3 AJ's and are effectively giving the position to those who already have other positions AKA "encouraging concentration of power in fewer hands and literally making the courts a potential subsidiary of the other branches." If we look at each of our recent elections, its pretty clear there is a dominant effect that supports this trend. 3. We want to reconsider the number of positions based on the above or perhaps alter the positions in some ways to make them function with less overlap or conflicts. For example, let's say the AJ's were from the pool of Glenn, Belschaft, and Farengeto and Kris remained Chief Justice. All of those people don't have other government positions as of now. However, its also possible that a cabinet appoints themselves and we have Escade, Tim and Roavin both in the cabinet and on the courts. I'd very much prefer the first scenario to the second. While this cabinet won't do that, we also have seen that cabinets shift and so does popular perception. And this also I think acts to prevent unforeseen consequences. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
I think that keeping the Associate Justice as something which can also be in other government positions would be beneficial. I'll be frank, it's a boring as fuck job 95% of the time. There's a reason Court positions don't get as much fanfare as Executive or Legislative, and that's simply because there's less to do. 95% of the time, you're not actually doing anything.
I think your pool of prospective Associate Justices would increase dramatically if we didn't forbid them from holding other positions. There are plenty people well-versed in Law that simply aren't interested in Judiciary roles because it would require them to give up way more exciting positions. I know Kris is going to be mad at me painting Associate Justice as a side-job, but that is exactly what I would view it as. I don't think there's anything wrong with painting it as that, as long as you make clear that it's just as important. I think it would be a very important side-job, and I think that people should take their side-jobs just as seriously as their main jobs. if you're working full-time, but also have a part-time job, your part-time job will fire you if you only show up to your full-time one.
I disagree. Service in the High Court is not, and should never be regarded as, a side job. It is exactly that kind of mistake that leads us to treat the judiciary as a less important branch, prone to politicisation and mismanagement. If someone treats their position of Associate Justice as a side job, then they probably should not be serving on the Court in the first place, because they clearly have their priorities elsewhere.
Regardless of the presence or absence of a firewall in this reform, I would be very concerned if we started having Associate Justices who regard their jobs in the Court as something to be done in addition to their "more exciting positions". Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (02-18-2018, 04:22 PM)Tim Wrote: I think that keeping the Associate Justice as something which can also be in other government positions would be beneficial. I'll be frank, it's a boring as fuck job 95% of the time. There's a reason Court positions don't get as much fanfare as Executive or Legislative, and that's simply because there's less to do. 95% of the time, you're not actually doing anything. Again we're differentiating from widening the pool to people who already hold positions to actually widening the pool to people who don't hold positions and could grow and develop. The former alleged widening the pool only actually gives the same few people access to multiple powers which I'm frankly against. We're misusing "widening the pool" which should mean "allowing more people to have a voice and more people to participate" to "giving people who hold full-time jobs more power and therefore limiting who will actually get the job or position." If we can't find enough eligible people, who don't already hold government positions, to take on an AJ position then maybe we don't need this many positions. I think we do have enough eligible or willing to learn people outside of those already in power and therefore firewalling prevents the same few people taking the jobs and treating them as side jobs rather than someone who will treat it as their main responsibility and therefore not only give it their full attention but perhaps innovate. Maybe make a moot court instead of see it as a boring thing that they want because of the title and only pay attention to it when convenient. If you find it boring, you're probably not either suited for the position or need to learn more about it. In my vision, the courts (if we stop treating them like a second tier branch of government) could expand with moot courts or other legal and law related areas that many NSers do enjoy. (02-18-2018, 04:45 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Finally, I see the same problems plaguing this act of reform as those of the Legislator Committee. The one difference I see between the Legislator Committee and this panel are that there do seem to be enough players who are not in government positions who would at least be interested in taking on the job. So why not encourage and actually widen the number of people in government rather than narrowing them? Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
I think it’s a matter of practical necessity that non-main justices are “side jobs.” The court is as active as it’s ever been, and yet only a single Justice is currently needed. The vast majority of the time, associates aren’t needed. So it’s unrealistic to expect active players to tie themselves down to a job they’ll rarely get to do. It’s not perfect, but few things are.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hold on. I was under the impression that, with this reform, each Justice, Chief or Associate, would regularly handle their own cases. What's the point of getting rid of the Pool otherwise?
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |