Users browsing this thread:

**Amerion** · 11-18-2019, 07:22 AM

Madam Chair and esteemed Legislators,

In accordance with the Judicial Act, the Cabinet is pleased to nominate Nat to serve as an Associate Justice on the High Court.^[1]

Cabinet is most thankful for the three applicants who put themselves forward for consideration. All were exceptionally strong candidates who would no doubt be well placed on the bench. At this time, however, we believe Nat to be the suitable nominee due to their passion for the affairs of the Court as well as their strong argumentative abilities. While Cabinet has decided to proceed with Nat, we do so with the knowledge that should the need once more arise, we will have two qualified individuals ready and willing to serve our region.

Although he may lack government experience, Nat is nevertheless well-versed in our laws and procedures and has over the course of his time in the South Pacific, developed an exceptional reputation for his ability to present carefully reasoned arguments before the Court. We believe Nat will be a strong addition to the bench and as such, we respectfully nominate him for the consideration and approval of this Assembly.

For the convenience of this body, we are attaching to this nomination a copy of his responses to the Judicial Selection Survey as well as the Court's opinion on the nominee. Alternatively, a Google Doc version is available here.

.pdf

Nat — Judicial Selection Process.pdf (Size: 289.2 KB / Downloads: 38)

——————————

[1] Judicial Act, Article 1. The High Court, Clause 5, stipulates: '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.'

(This post was last modified: 12-04-2019, 03:30 AM by Nakari.)

Nat · 11-18-2019, 07:46 AM

I thank the Cabinet for my nomination. I am able and willing to answer any questions that members of the Assembly may have regarding my application.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

***Roavin*** · 11-18-2019, 08:39 AM

Once appointed, will you move to fix the sentencing snafu still extant?

Nat · 11-18-2019, 05:19 PM

(11-18-2019, 08:39 AM)Roavin Wrote: Once appointed, will you move to fix the sentencing snafu still extant?

It would be good to resolve all open cases as soon as reasonably possible (without compromising the quality of the Court's response). However, it is important to note that I have previously made a submission to Legality of Plea Bargins (HCLQ 1903). As such, I would seek advice from the current justices regarding whether it is appropriate for me to be assigned to write or co-sign the Court's opinion in cases where I have made a submission.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

***sandaoguo*** · 11-21-2019, 08:48 PM

No offense to Nat, but we don’t need another justice who thinks “the letter of the law is paramount.” This isn’t the US Supreme Court. Once TSP hires real lawyers to write its laws, then maybe then we can have such a restrictive and counterproductive way of viewing things.

TSP shouldn’t be hamstrung by the Court just because the Assembly made a mistake in updating a law or forgot a common here or there. It’s very easy to determine the Assembly’s intent— you can often ask the authors themselves in real time!

(This post was last modified: 11-21-2019, 08:49 PM by sandaoguo.)

Nat · 11-22-2019, 02:14 AM

(11-21-2019, 08:48 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: No offense to Nat, but we don’t need another justice who thinks “the letter of the law is paramount.” This isn’t the US Supreme Court. Once TSP hires real lawyers to write its laws, then maybe then we can have such a restrictive and counterproductive way of viewing things.

TSP shouldn’t be hamstrung by the Court just because the Assembly made a mistake in updating a law or forgot a common here or there. It’s very easy to determine the Assembly’s intent— you can often ask the authors themselves in real time!

I see the merit of your argument. Perhaps the Assembly could write a resolution on the broad principles for legal interpretation in TSP. I know I would welcome such a document. Until then though, I will try my best to faithfully interpret our laws according to the philosophy outlined in my application.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Bleakfoot · 11-22-2019, 02:39 AM

(11-22-2019, 02:14 AM)Nat Wrote: I see the merit of your argument. Perhaps the Assembly could write a resolution on the broad principles for legal interpretation in TSP. I know I would welcome such a document. Until then though, I will try my best to faithfully interpret our laws according to the philosophy outlined in my application.

Not to derail the thread but I would be happy to assist with any efforts to produce something of the kind outlined by Nat here. Interpreting laws and regulations is part of my job IRL so I would hope I have something useful to contribute.

**Rebeltopia** · 11-22-2019, 10:36 AM

Not to burst your bubble, here, Glen... But the Judicial Act LITERATELY STATES that Justices should rule upon what is written in law... not what the intent of that law may have been

Quote:2. Judicial Conduct and Requirements

(1) Justices of the High Court shall
a. rule upon what is written in law ...

"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011

One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

Quotes

(This post was last modified: 11-22-2019, 10:37 AM by Rebeltopia.)

***sandaoguo*** · 11-24-2019, 10:01 AM

(11-22-2019, 10:36 AM)Rebeltopia Wrote: Not to burst your bubble, here, Glen... But the Judicial Act LITERATELY STATES that Justices should rule upon what is written in law... not what the intent of that law may have been

Quote:2. Judicial Conduct and Requirements

(1) Justices of the High Court shall
a. rule upon what is written in law ...

Not to burst your own here, RT, but all court cases are about how we interpret what’s written and that’s entirely a subjective matter. The Judicial Act doesn’t dictate how justices must interpret legal issues, and believing it does highlights how wrong most of you guys are when it comes to “the law is what the law says” reductive arguments.

This is one of the areas that TSP has never seemed to get right. A certain type of player demands that it’s more valuable and more important to hold the community hostage to imperfectly written law, rather than using the available history on the forum and Discord (along with basic common sense about TSP’s community and political context) to reconcile a typo, grammatical error, or oversight with what people actually believed they were voting on. It’s resulted in stupid and destructive outcomes before, and TSP is insane to keep doing it.

I’d sooner we abolish the judiciary and settle all disputes in the Assembly, than have a judiciary that divorces legal interpretation from easily accessible and understandable intent.

(This post was last modified: 11-24-2019, 10:06 AM by sandaoguo.)

**Beepee** · 11-24-2019, 04:12 PM

Given your comment above @sandaoguo, I think you should have no problem with Nats appointment then.

In the Palpatine case, Nat has said (paraphrasing) whilst theres a process for changing systems, Nat would allow a different process (I.e. not in line with the written word of the law and through the assembly).

Personally I would prefer the proper process followed.... but that's just me I suppose.

Check my links.....

SWAN 4 Life
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1086117