Quote:Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court
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.
(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) The Cabinet is compelled to appoint a fitting individual as per above with all deliberate speed 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.
(7) The Cabinet may also propose the appointment of a Temporary Justice, limited to a specific period of time.
a. The Chair of the Assembly may choose bring this appointment to an immediate approval vote without debate if the appointment is urgent and limited to at most two months.
b. The requirements for appointment as Temporary Justice shall otherwise be the same as for appointment as Associate Justice.
c. Temporary Justices shall be able to take on cases as regular Justice, however their decisions shall be subject to approval by another, non-temporary Justice.
Differences: removed another section due to concerns
Quote:Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court
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.
(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) The Cabinet is compelled to appoint a fitting individual as per above with all deliberate speed 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.
d. The Assembly passes a resolution to this effect. This does not allow the Assembly to nominate candidates.
(7) The Cabinet may also propose the appointment of a Temporary Justice, limited to a specific period of time.
a. The Chair of the Assembly may choose bring this appointment to an immediate approval vote without debate if the appointment is urgent and limited to at most two months.
b. The requirements for appointment as Temporary Justice shall otherwise be the same as for appointment as Associate Justice.
c. Temporary Justices shall be able to take on cases as regular Justice, however their decisions shall be subject to approval by another, non-temporary Justice.
Differences: removed several sections, changed the language
Quote:Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court
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.
(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) The Cabinet is compelled to appoint a fitting individual as per above with all deliberate speed 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.
(7) The Chair of the Assembly will every six months start a discussion on the current bench of the court, to investigate potential dereliction of duty.
a. Legislators may move to vote on a resolution to approve the full bench anytime, according to the regular requirements for such motions. This resolution shall require a simple majority.
b. If, after seven days, no resolution to approve the full bench has been put to vote and no proposal to either recall a Justice, following the regular procedure, or a proposal to compel the Cabinet to appoint additional Justices has been put forward, the Chair shall put to vote a resolution to approve the full bench.
c. If such alternative proposals have been rejected or not been brought to a vote within fourteen days, the Chair shall put to vote a resolution to approve the full bench.
d. If a vote to approve the full bench fails and no valid alternative proposals have been put forward, the Chair shall bring to vote a resolution to compel the Cabinet to appoint an additional Justice.
e. If all votes fail, Cabinet shall debate potential action. It may then dismiss the issue.
(8) The Assembly may at any time vote on a resolution compel the Cabinet to appoint one or more additional Justices with all deliberate speed.
a. The Assembly is not allowed to nominate any candidates.
(9) The Cabinet may also propose the appointment of a Temporary Justice, limited to a specific period of time, to deal with high caseload, absences or similar.
a. The Chair of the Assembly may choose bring this appointment to an immediate approval vote without debate if the appointment is urgent and limited to at most two months.
b. The assembly may recall a Temporary Justice with a simple majority at any time.
c. The requirements for appointment as Temporary Justice shall otherwise be the same as for appointment as Associate Justice.
d. Temporary Justices shall be able to take on cases as regular Justice, however their decisions shall be subject to approval by another, non-temporary Justice.
Differences: added "all deliberate speed" to clause 8
Quote:Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court
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.
(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) The Cabinet is compelled to appoint a fitting individual as per above with all deliberate speed 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.
(7) The Chair of the Assembly will every six months start a discussion on the current bench of the court, to investigate potential dereliction of duty.
a. Legislators may move to vote on a resolution to approve the full bench anytime, according to the regular requirements for such motions. This resolution shall require a simple majority.
b. If, after seven days, no resolution to approve the full bench has been put to vote and no proposal to either recall a Justice, following the regular procedure, or a proposal to compel the Cabinet to appoint additional Justices has been put forward, the Chair shall put to vote a resolution to approve the full bench.
c. If such alternative proposals have been rejected or not been brought to a vote within fourteen days, the Chair shall put to vote a resolution to approve the full bench.
d. If a vote to approve the full bench fails and no valid alternative proposals have been put forward, the Chair shall bring to vote a resolution to compel the Cabinet to appoint an additional Justice.
e. If all votes fail, Cabinet shall debate potential action. It may then dismiss the issue.
(8) The Assembly may at any time vote on a resolution compel the Cabinet to appoint one or more additional Justices.
a. The Assembly is not allowed to nominate any candidates.
(9) The Cabinet may also propose the appointment of a Temporary Justice, limited to a specific period of time, to deal with high caseload, absences or similar.
a. The Chair of the Assembly may choose bring this appointment to an immediate approval vote without debate if the appointment is urgent and limited to at most two months.
b. The assembly may recall a Temporary Justice with a simple majority at any time.
c. The requirements for appointment as Temporary Justice shall otherwise be the same as for appointment as Associate Justice.
d. Temporary Justices shall be able to take on cases as regular Justice, however their decisions shall be subject to approval by another, non-temporary Justice.
(This post was last modified: 10-30-2019, 03:14 PM by Sasha.)
Reply
Thanks for your ideas. From the looks of things, many of these Assembly votes are about calling on others (particularly Cabinet) to do things. I believe the Assembly can already pass such resolutions of its own free accord (Legislative Procedure Act 1.1). It also has the power to recall a judge (The Charter, Article XI.1).
The current law does not require much for a new judge to be installed. The Cabinet picks someone (with the Court's advice), the Assembly debates it for three days, the Assembly votes on it for three days, and the new judge takes their oath. All in all, it need only take a week. I am not sure what situation would arise where this process is too long.
While I am not convinced we need temporary judges, perhaps this wording might be better (just a suggestion - feel free to take it or leave it):
Quote:(7) If a case cannot continue due to a lack of judges, the Cabinet may appoint a temporary Associate Justice for a period not exceeding two months
a. The Assembly must approve this appointment by a simple majority vote within seven days, otherwise the appointment is nullified
Again, thank you for your ideas; it is great that you have an interest in improving our system of government 
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
(This post was last modified: 10-26-2019, 11:24 PM by Nat.)
Reply
(10-26-2019, 11:23 PM)Nat Wrote: Thanks for your ideas. From the looks of things, many of these Assembly votes are about calling on others (particularly Cabinet) to do things. I believe the Assembly can already pass such resolutions of its own free accord (Legislative Procedure Act 1.1). It also has the power to recall a judge (The Charter, Article XI.1).
The current law does not require much for a new judge to be installed. The Cabinet picks someone (with the Court's advice), the Assembly debates it for three days, the Assembly votes on it for three days, and the new judge takes their oath. All in all, it need only take a week. I am not sure what situation would arise where this process is too long.
While I am not convinced we need temporary judges, perhaps this wording might be better (just a suggestion - feel free to take it or leave it):
Quote:(7) If a case cannot continue due to a lack of judges, the Cabinet may appoint a temporary Associate Justice for a period not exceeding two months
a. The Assembly must approve this appointment by a simple majority vote within seven days, otherwise the appointment is nullified
Again, thank you for your ideas; it is great that you have an interest in improving our system of government
A big part of the idea was for temporary justices to be used in cases where too many justices have been recused but a permanent extension of the bench is otherwise not warranted/wanted.
(10-26-2019, 11:28 PM)Sasha Wrote: A big part of the idea was for temporary justices to be used in cases where too many justices have been recused but a permanent extension of the bench is otherwise not warranted/wanted.
I think that is probably a good idea. It would be nice to get feedback from our current bench on whether they foresee this as a problem and if temporary judges are a reasonable solution. They have the best vantage point from which to see the benefits and issues of this proposal.
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
Pretty much with Nat on the lack of necessity for this, furthermore just generally a hard pass on any sort of reconfirmation or forced review shenanigans. We've tried that multiple times in this region, it never worked, plus as Farengeto noted on Discord, you could make a reasonable argument that this politicizes the court which it absolutely should not.
So basically, hard pass.
That being said, I'm not opposed (rather indifferent) to some sort of temporary justice arrangement, though as proposed it would basically just work the same as a regular appointment except being "time-limited".
After debate, I have substantially updated the original proposal.
I still believe that allowing the Assembly to compel Cabinet action (within limits) is reasonable.
And the temporary justice arrangement was requested for cases in which there have been too many recusals and may also, potentially be useful in cases where a justice is absent/busy for several months but not permanently and a permanent extension or resignation is considered unnecessary/unwanted.
-
Amerion
Admiral General
-
-
|
Joined:
Dec 2014
Posts:
2,235
Threads:
271
|
Credits: 97,400¢
I would like to first say that I very much appreciate the contribution of ideas, @ Sasha.
However, with respects to the proposal in its present form, I do not see why it is particularly necessary.
The Judicial Act already provides an avenue for resolving cases where there are too few Justices:
Judicial Act, 1. The High Court Wrote:...
(6) The Cabinet is compelled to appoint a fitting individual as per above with all deliberate speed 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.
Certainly, as you have argued, there may be instances where we may not desire a permanent extension of the Court but I do not believe this will often be the case. Rather, should the situation be so dire as to warrant a temporary Justice then it would be more logical for the Cabinet to appoint a permanent one.
(10-30-2019, 08:10 PM)Amerion Wrote: Rather, should the situation be so dire as to warrant a temporary Justice then it would be more logical for the Cabinet to appoint a permanent one.
I've been involved in two Justice selection processes already. The process is rather onerous because the appointment is permanent, so the stakes are high to get someone sufficiently serious, capable and committed. I don't know if I'd want us to go through that when the stake is a single case where too many Justices had to recuse, rather than (possibly) years of cases to be decided.
I'm also not sure I follow the logic where we should expand the Court when there isn't a pressing, ongoing need for it.
|
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Proposal Revision #2![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
