I'm proposing the following amendments to the Judicial Act, which will hopefully provide for a better and more transparent judicial nomination process. The current process leaves a lot done behind closed doors, where the Assembly is left unaware of whether or not politics or personal animosity is unduly influencing who is presented to the Assembly.

Our judiciary should be based largely on merit, and while political and personal temperament can be a factor in whether or not somebody is fit to sit on the court, unprofessional and biased decision-making is unhealthy for our democracy. Unfortunately, when a process is completely secret and held through Discord group DMs, it can become toxic and antithetical to creating a fair judiciary, because there's no accountability or disincentive.

An open and transparent process would remedy that, while also giving all legislators a lot more information about the nominees than they're currently getting.

Additionally, I would like to go from the Ivory Tower-ness of the judicial selection to an application-based one. When left to the Chief Justice and Cabinet alone, the same names tend to be tossed around each time. A very small number of players get the privilege of being considered "worthy" of the court, even though plenty others may actually have the judgement and temperament needed. But because they lack to the built-up reputation from being considered so many times, they're usually never thought of. By switching to open applications, the Chief Justice and the Cabinet can hopefully see a lot more candidates they'd never think to approach on their own.

-----

Amendment to the Judicial Act

 
(1) Article 1 of the Judicial Act is amended as follows:
 

Article 1: The High Court

(1) The High Court comprises a Chief Justice and at least two Associate Justices. 

(2) The Chief Justice operates the High Court. In case of vacancy, absence, or recusal, the Associate Justices shall collectively operate the High Court, until the Associate Justices select a new Chief Justice among themselves.

(3) The Chief Justice may order the recusal of any Associate Justice on a specific issue. The Associate Justices may collectively force the recusal of the Chief Justice on a specific issue.

(4) In case of a vacancy, a willing and eligible Associate Justice will be selected by their peers to serve as Chief Justice.

(5) To appoint an Associate Justice, the Cabinet will consult with the High Court and present a willing and eligible individual to the Assembly for an approval vote. 

(6) (4) The Cabinet is compelled to appoint a fitting individual as per above with all deliberate speed, under the Article 2 Appointment Procedures, if--
a. there are less than two Associate Justices on the High Court,
b. the Chief Justice position is vacant, and the Associate Justices cannot determine a new Chief Justice amongst themselves for any reason, or
c. a case cannot continue due to recusals.
 
(5) If a case cannot continue due to recusals, the Cabinet is compelled to appoint a temporary Associate Justice only to hear the case, whose duties will expire upon the conclusion of the case.

 
(2) A new Article 2 will be inserted as follows, with subsequent articles being renumbered as necessary:
 

Article 2: Appointment Procedure

(1) The Chief Justice and the Cabinet will announce open applications to fill all vacancies on the High Court.

(2) The Chief Justice and the Cabinet will review all applications and decide which applicants will be provided a public hearing.
(a) The deliberations during the application reviews shall not be influenced by political or personal animus, and only be based on judicial merit.
(b) The deliberations will be published during the public hearings, to ensure that the process was fair and professional.

(3) A public hearing forum will be opened, that will be viewable by all legislators and can be posted in by the Chief Justice, the Cabinet, and the judicial candidates.

(4) During the public hearing, the Chief Justice and the Cabinet may interview the judicial candidates about their jurisprudential views, their fitness for office, conflicts of interests, and any other relevant matter.  Any legislator may forward questions to the judicial candidates, which will be moderated by the Chief Justice and the Cabinet.

(5) At the end of the public hearing, the Chief Justice and the Cabinet will vote on which candidates to formally nominate. The Assembly will then vote to approve or disapprove the nominees by simple majority vote.

(This post was last modified: 05-08-2018, 07:24 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

I'm proposing the following amendments to the Judicial Act, which will hopefully provide for a better and more transparent judicial nomination process. The current process leaves a lot done behind closed doors, where the Assembly is left unaware of whether or not politics or personal animosity is unduly influencing who is presented to the Assembly.

Our judiciary should be based largely on merit, and while political and personal temperament can be a factor in whether or not somebody is fit to sit on the court, unprofessional and biased decision-making is unhealthy for our democracy. Unfortunately, when a process is completely secret and held through Discord group DMs, it can become toxic and antithetical to creating a fair judiciary, because there's no accountability or disincentive.

An open and transparent process would remedy that, while also giving all legislators a lot more information about the nominees than they're currently getting.

Additionally, I would like to go from the Ivory Tower-ness of the judicial selection to an application-based one. When left to the Chief Justice and Cabinet alone, the same names tend to be tossed around each time. A very small number of players get the privilege of being considered "worthy" of the court, even though plenty others may actually have the judgement and temperament needed. But because they lack to the built-up reputation from being considered so many times, they're usually never thought of. By switching to open applications, the Chief Justice and the Cabinet can hopefully see a lot more candidates they'd never think to approach on their own.

-----

Amendment to the Judicial Act

 
(1) Article 1 of the Judicial Act is amended as follows:
 

Article 1: The High Court

(1) The High Court comprises a Chief Justice and at least two Associate Justices. 

(2) The Chief Justice operates the High Court. In case of vacancy, absence, or recusal, the Associate Justices shall collectively operate the High Court, until the Associate Justices select a new Chief Justice among themselves.

(3) The Chief Justice may order the recusal of any Associate Justice on a specific issue. The Associate Justices may collectively force the recusal of the Chief Justice on a specific issue.

(4) In case of a vacancy, a willing and eligible Associate Justice will be selected by their peers to serve as Chief Justice.

(5) To appoint an Associate Justice, the Cabinet will consult with the High Court and present a willing and eligible individual to the Assembly for an approval vote. 

(6) (4) The Cabinet is compelled to appoint a fitting individual as per above with all deliberate speed, under the Article 2 Appointment Procedures, if--
a. there are less than two Associate Justices on the High Court,
b. the Chief Justice position is vacant, and the Associate Justices cannot determine a new Chief Justice amongst themselves for any reason, or
c. a case cannot continue due to recusals.
 
(5) If a case cannot continue due to recusals, the Cabinet is compelled to appoint a temporary Associate Justice only to hear the case, whose duties will expire upon the conclusion of the case.

 
(2) A new Article 2 will be inserted as follows, with subsequent articles being renumbered as necessary:
 

Article 2: Appointment Procedure

(1) The Chief Justice and the Cabinet will announce open applications to fill all vacancies on the High Court.

(2) The Chief Justice and the Cabinet will review all applications and decide which applicants will be provided a public hearing.
(a) The deliberations during the application reviews shall not be influenced by political or personal animus, and only be based on judicial merit.
(b) The deliberations will be published during the public hearings, to ensure that the process was fair and professional.

(3) A public hearing forum will be opened, that will be viewable by all legislators and can be posted in by the Chief Justice, the Cabinet, and the judicial candidates.

(4) During the public hearing, the Chief Justice and the Cabinet may interview the judicial candidates about their jurisprudential views, their fitness for office, conflicts of interests, and any other relevant matter.  Any legislator may forward questions to the judicial candidates, which will be moderated by the Chief Justice and the Cabinet.

(5) At the end of the public hearing, the Chief Justice and the Cabinet will vote on which candidates to formally nominate. The Assembly will then vote to approve or disapprove the nominees by simple majority vote.

(This post was last modified: 05-08-2018, 04:55 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Do you actually have any evidence of improper selection? Because it sounds like you're making a whole case out of the suspicion that something happened or could've happened.


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

(This post was last modified: 05-08-2018, 05:04 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

I like the application idea very much.

Reply

I'm into the idea of applications, but think that making the nominations a public spectacle is dumb as shit.

[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"

Reply

Do you actually have any evidence of improper selection? Because it sounds like you're making a whole case out of the suspicion that |something happened or could've happened.

With respect, here's what you had to say about the process yesterday: "I think the process is hopelessly politicised already, and I've absolutely hated every second of the discussions I had with the Cabinet, but based on how they went, I can see them going down much worse if they were public."

Coming from the Chief Justice, that's a worrying piece of preliminary evidence. I have advocated for the current deliberations to be made public, to which the Cabinet and yourself have strongly opposed. That in combination with describing the process as "hopeless policitized" and saying it would be "much worse" if done publicly, strongly implies that there's a lot in the logs that might go against our ideas of how justices should be chosen. Am I completely wrong?

I'm into the idea of applications, but think that making the nominations a public spectacle is dumb as shit.

In what ways would it be a "spectacle"? Would you agree to make the current deliberations public, and if no, why not? The way these public hearings would work isn't an Assembly free-for-all. It's a moderated public hearing, where only the Chief Justice, Cabinet, and nominees can post. That's a managed process, not "spectacle." I'm actually pretty confused about why, as a Cabinet member, you would describe publicly interviewing candidates that way.

I have a genuine question for the Chief Justice and every Cabinet member: Have the deliberations for choosing the two Associate Justices been civil, professional, and based on merit? Has there been mention of personal animosity, political disagreement, and other factors that a reasonable person would criticize? Has the process included resentment, fighting, etc? When opinions were given on the various people under consideration, were the reasons always relevant to the person's judicial merit? Were there any flat denials without providing good reason, or blind approvals without providing good reason?

(This post was last modified: 05-08-2018, 05:21 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

I completely disagree with this idea of publicizing the selection process. Appointment of the justice and associate justice should be left as it is. The assembly is supplied with the relevant information upon being presented with the nominee and that is more than sufficient. Discussions should be private to allow for frank and harsh examinations of the potential candidate. Not just that but it allows us to discuss potentially classified information about any potential candidate during this process. All that publicizing this system does is restrict our ability to freely discuss and debate all factors that could be pertinent to a potential candidates selection. Furthermore it breeds distrust between our elected officials and our legislators. We should be able to count on them to act appropriate to their position behind close doors especially in the size of community that we have.

Greetings, I am The Serres Republic.

Currently 'The Future Greatest and Most Splendid General of All TSP.'

I know you all look forward to when I complete my grand quest ;P.

Official ‘Most Dedicated Raider’ in all of TSP. Look at me all evil and shtuff ;P

Heck I was MoFA, Now Im PM. I must be loved owo

Reply

From my personal perspective:

Have the deliberations for choosing the two Associate Justices been civil, professional, and based on merit?

Mostly to all three.

Has there been mention of personal animosity, political disagreement, and other factors that a reasonable person would criticize?

Yes, no, unsure.

Has the process included resentment, fighting, etc?

Some.

When opinions were given on the various people under consideration, were the reasons always relevant to the person's judicial merit?

While judicial merit was a focus, the discussion also included discussion about other issues (such as temperament of the individual).

Were there any flat denials without providing good reason, or blind approvals without providing good reason?

Not really. There were some flat feelings expressed initially, though I think all the opinions of those involved have evolved into being reasoned (and in some cases, different from the initially expressed feeling).

Reply

I would say Roavin has been fairly accurate in his assessment.

I said the process was "hopelessly politicised" in the sense that I feel I don't see eye to eye with some Ministers on what qualities the Associate Justices should possess, or how to weigh the various criteria when deciding who should be nominated. It was said after a particularly frustrating discussion, made more difficult by the fact that I also have some differences with certain Ministers on how discussions should be approached.

The sentiment I have just expressed remains (and I obviously think my view is the correct one), but perhaps I should've used a term that didn't imply that politics had somehow influenced decisions, which isn't at all the case.

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

Reply

Am I missing something here? Why are we not focusing at all on ensuring the Assembly actually questions nominees? I don't know about the Cabinet, but I don't consent to a nomination with the idea that the Assembly will just approve then. I'm wishing for the Assembly to be tough and thorough and ask plenty of questions. If that doesn't happen, that's not my or the Cabinet's fault, that's an issue for the Assembly to work on.


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

Reply