NOMINATION OF GRIFFINDOR TO THE HIGH COURT MAY 26, 2020 Fellow Legislators, dear Chairwoman, after careful deliberation, including consultation with Justices Kringalia, Belschaft and Nat, the Cabinet has decided to nominate Griffindor to serve on the High Court of the South Pacific. Griffindor has a background in the High Court, having served as a law clerk under then-Permanent Justice Kringalia. The submitted answers demonstrate the balanced mindset that is to be expected from a justice, and while they were not flawless, the required signoff mechanisms in our judicial system mean that there will be a collegial discussion about any opinions reached by the court to smooth over any such imperfections. For your convenience, Griffindor's answers to the judicial survey as well as the Court's opinion are attached below. Chairwoman, with the power vested in me as Prime Minister of the Coalition, I declare that the Cabinet has in good faith appointed Griffindor to serve as Associate Justices in accordance with per Article 1 Section 5 of the Judicial Act, and request that the corresponding assembly procedure is initiated. Faithfully yours, CABINET OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC Opinion of the Court "Griffindor has a background in the High Court, however, limited, and therefore has a certain amount of knowledge about its internal proceedings. Their answers display a welcome degree of nuance and an interest in addressing issues not only on a strict textualist approach, but also from a realistic perspective, so that whatever answer is reached can withstand reality. Their experience as a Law Clerk can provide valuable insight on the work that the Court should do to appeal to newer generations and ensure that it becomes an approachable institution." Answers What roles do the letter and the spirit of the law have in judicial interpretation, and with respect to each other? One should always use the letter of the law primarily when making legal decisions, however, laws are also made to be left up to some interpretation whether by the police officer about to write you a ticket or arrest you, or if a law was ambiguous and could be interpreted multiple ways. To what extent should the customary understanding and application of a law inform its interpretation by a judge? As stated in the previous question, the law should be followed as closely as possible, but should be interpreted if it is ambiguous. If a judge is contemplating a different interpretation of a well established precedent, it should be avoided, unless there is good reason to the contrary; such as a change in thought or meaning of a word over time. To what extent should prior rulings bind or guide the decision of a judge? What is the importance of judicial precedent in informing cases? Precedent means everything in the real world, many courts look to past decisions almost as much as they look at the base law, sometimes more so. Courts that overturn established precedent do so after careful consideration, especially if the previous precedent is no longer the modern way of thinking. Under what circumstances would custom, judicial precedent and other sources of interpretation not be useful as a means of informing a judge? If someone was on trial and they had considerable impact on building the laws or precedent seemingly in a way to avoid the punishment under the law, the judge would be forced to carefully consider the precedent as it could be tainted by bias. What is the importance of amicus curiae briefs, testimonies and questioning in the consideration of cases? Amicus curiae is a very important function, especially for courts whose decisions will have bearing across a large swath of a land. People not party to the court case would be bound by its decision, and would want a favorable outcome. Testimony and questioning are also important since if these are missing it is simply the original information presented to the court that the judge has to make a decision. The original information might not be complete or contains inaccuracies that testimony or questioning could clear up. What issues should be considered when deciding the justiciability of a case or when finding probable cause of a crime? To decide upon justiciability in a case, there needs to be enough evidence or reasonable doubt present to warrant a trial taking place. If someone argues that Roavin stole 5 apples, and Roavin says they didn't, its he said she said unless the person bringing the charges can prove that Roavin had sticky hands, and that is enough evidence to warrant a trial to take place. What issues should be considered when deciding whether or not to recuse from a case? Deciding when or when not to recuse from a case is a major factor for judges. A judge should recuse themselves from a case if they were party to one side this having a conflict of interest in the matter. Also, a judge should consider recusing if one party in a court case raises concern over a potential conflict of interest in the outcome of the case not evident to the judge in the moment. What relative importance would you ascribe to expediency and thoroughness, respectively, when considering cases and drafting rulings? Justice should be swift and fair. There is a reason that the United States guarantees a speedy trial. We should always as the members of the court strive to not have unnecessary delays on the next step or overall verdict of a trial. This is especially true in a criminal case where the accused is generally suspended (or entirely removed) of their position, it is not fair for the accused to be in legal limbo for an unfair amount of time, especially if found innocent. Thoroughness should always be a part of a courts function, so long as it's not the cause of an excessive delay in court proceedings. How important is it to explain within a ruling the legal, customary, evidentiary and other arguments that contributed towards a decision? It is not too terribly important to explain the reasoning too much so long as the verdict is clear in why the verdict came up that way. If it is not clear, then the reasoning, evidence and other arguments can be explained in a way that reinforces the verdict. Explaining for the sake of explaining it can cause the verdict to become fluffed in which case the reader becomes disengaged and the precedent set is that of fluff. What role should the Court have with respect to the balance of power between the three branches of government? The court is (and should) be a co-equal branch of the government. In the same way the US Congress is designed to be slightly more powerful than the other branches, so too is the Assembly, which confirms members of the court. The court exist to resolve disputes between the branches of government, and answer legal questions to clarify the meaning or ability of a law. What role should judges have in regional, political and governmental life? Justices should naturally be less involved in the politics of a region simply because they belong to another branch of government that others don't belong to. That is not to say that they cant, but they should not be a leading voice in the politics to the point where their voice is the one making decisions. In terms of regional participation, judges should be active within the community talking about the court and its function, trying to gather interest in the court. They should also go about freely discussing other things such as RL events. What steps should judges take to avoid conflicts of interest in fact and by appearance? As said above (to an extent); judges should simply take a step back from active participation in the rest of the government so that their voice isnt the most dominate. It might also be good for the justice to, when participating in government, to advise a body they are in on what the law currently says and how they interpret that in an unofficial way (as to not make it an official court postion). Should the High Court seek to train judicial and legal talent? If it should, why, and what steps should be taken to train talent? Would your skills and prior experiences be useful for that? If it should not, why not? Yes. That is how I got my start for the enjoyment of law in TSP; if others become interested it only serves to strengthen the talent of the region. What role should public opinion and pressure, potential popularity or unpopularity, personal views or friendships and political alliances play in the judicial process? Ideally, this should play no influence in the day to day influences in the court. Sadly, we are human and this is not possible, especially in NS where many people wear several different hats in the region, as well as other regions. Ultimately, we should keep the interference as minimal as possible. I will strive to do this if chosen to fill the vacant seat on the court. Moot Court, Appending of Titles It is deemed justiciable. The ruling of the court is that adding the position that one occupies in a post constitutes an official post by the office of the officeholder. The court made this decision by determining that there must be a clear separation between official notices and statements to that of personal conversation. When a member of the government lists their office in a statement, even if it is personal in nature rather than official, the statement still carries the weight of the government officials' office behind it. In the instance of the March 18th statement made by Veggie Basket, he begins his post with him listing his office and then begins with a seemingly personal statement. Then the post shifts into Veggie Basket defending his office and actions and well as indicating in a threatening way that he will be removed from the region, which would be an official act of Veggie Basket's office. Veggie Basket is correct in saying that he has free speech, so too does Steamland to make his jokes that he has been making without incident for several months with no harm or previous complaints made. Veggie Basket however also has the added responsibility of not abusing the powers of his office, and while the court does not advise Veggie Basket from restricting his free speech, Veggie Basket must not use his free speech rights in a way that damages the public trust instilled in his office. At the end of the day, Veggie Straws is merely a caretaker for the position he is currently in. The court would recommend that instead of listing a position at the top of a personal post to indicate their status as an officeholder; Veggie Straws (along with all officeholders) put their office in their signature to indicate that they hold the office but are not making an official post. The court will allow questions if any are made. It is so ordered. Moot Court, Organa v. Palpatine This case does not have probable cause to proceed to a full trial. It is the opinion of the court that the Prime Minister, Palpatine did not commit treason by announcing that a charter amendment to dissolve the coalition would be introduced. The reasoning behind this decision is rather straightforward. While it is in the opinion of the court that a considerable amount of constitutional changes have been made in the last several months, all of which are potentially dangerous to the long term democratic function and freedom of expression of the citizens of the region; the changes to the law were done entirely legally. The declaration by the Prime Minister makes no mention of dissolving the coalition beyond announcing that he intends to propose an amendment to dissolve the coalition, which is perfectly legal under the law. The evidence presented to the court makes no mention of the Prime Minister declaring the coalition dissolved in any way without an accompanying amendment being introduced first. One can make an argument that the Coalition of the South Pacific cannot be dissolved on a whim, and this is true. There is no provision in the Charter that allows any office or branch of the government to dissolve the coalition. However, the closest thing that comes to the authority to dissolve is granted to the Assembly in Article 4 section 1 of the charter where it says that the Assembly is granted all legislative power, which would include the ability to legislate the coalition out of existence through the amendment process. Another route is Article 14 section 1 which allows the Assembly to authorize a Great Council to be formed to radically alter the Charter to a completely new set of laws. If it is the will of the region to elect, and reelect the Prime Minister and support his policies in the Assembly, then the court has no right to reject the popular will of the region. Further, even if the court was to declare the Prime Minister a traitor and expel him from the region, the legal framework of the government that has been adopted over the last several months will still remain, allowing the next occupant to continue where Prime Minister Palpatine left off, as evidenced by the popular will of the region in enacting these policies. The court will allow questions if any are made. It is so ordered.

(This post was last modified: 06-06-2020, 01:53 AM by phoenixofthesun14.)

Reply

Congratulations to Griffindor!

---

Might I ask why this nomination is considered a security matter and, therefore, located in the Private Halls?

Admiral General of the South Pacific

Reply

Might I ask why this nomination is considered a security matter and, therefore, located in the Private Halls?

It isn't - I suppose I should have put it in the public halls. The Madam Chairphoenix can set it on fire and reconstruct it there if she pleases.

Reply

Congratulations!

I'm here cause I was pinged!

Local Councillor (3/15/20 - 6/23/20)
Deputy Minister of Educational Affairs (2/19/20 - 4/9/20)
Senior Fellow of Integration (12/20/20 - 2/19/20)
Fellow (1/12/19 - ~10/14/20) 
Ambassador to Osiris and TWP (4/3/20 - 7/8/20)
Legislator (1/19/19 - 11/1/21)
Chair of the Assembly (6/23/20 - 9/3/20)
Secretary of State (7/8/20 - 2/4/21 | 6/14/21 - 11/1/21) 
Deputy of Media (2/14/21 - 11/1/21)
Ambassador to TNP and Lazarus  (6/14/21 - 10/22/21)
MoE Leadership (10/14/20 - 11/1/21)

Reply

Has the cabinet taken into consideration Griffindor's, at times, shady past within the South Pacific and other regions?

Aga/Eunopiar

Mostly does boring things.

Reply

Hello!

If this matter isn't considered a security matter, I will go ahead and move this thread to the public halls.  According to the Legislative Procedure Act, there will need to be 3 days of discussion before being moved to a vote (aside from being waived), 3 days for voting, and requires a simple 50% majority to pass.

If anyone objects to me moving this thread to the public halls, please let me know within the next few hours.

Empress of Fire 
Current Minister of Military Affairs
Chair Perch of the Assembly (February to June 2020)
SPSF Soldier
MoRA Fellow
Ambassador to Forest and Lazarus

Reply

I am humbled by the vote of confidence and nomination from the cabinet. I will also answer any and all questions presented.

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

Reply

Has the cabinet taken into consideration Griffindor's, at times, shady past within the South Pacific and other regions?

Yes. In fact, we even asked the Court explicitly if they had considered it in the opinion they provided to us. That being said, I'd like to note for the record that your phrasing suggests much more shady activity than there really was.

The "shady past", as you called it, comprises two incidents. The first was Griffindor's removal of Legislator Status in early 2018 for, essentially, using two accounts to vote. At the time of the removal, it was left open by the investigating entities whether formal charges would be pressed against Griffindor for the incident. That was not done, however, in part due to specific extenuating circumstances that I cannot elaborate upon. Nonetheless, Griffindor went on a sort of "self-imposed exile", moving to Balder for some time. The second incident is what led to his removal from Balder after a guilty conviction of treason earlier this year. Many of you will likely have heard about this from an article in NationStates Today, but the article missed a few key facts. For example, the article did not mention that three other high level government officials, including the then-incumbent Staatsminister (their equivalent to our Prime Minister position), were just as involved as Griffindor was in "Operation Heimdall", but were granted full immunity for their testimony against specifically Griffindor. Griffindor testified, and maintains plausibly to this day, that Operation Heimdall did not seek to overthrow the Balder government, but rather to introduce additional democratic elements to the monarchy.

To even get to this point, those two incidents had been evaluated and cleared by four distinct entities. First, as part of his Legislator application, both the Legislator Committee and the Council on Regional Security had full knowledge of these incidents and cleared Griffindor for not applying in bad faith and not being a security threat, respectively (as specified in the Legislator Committee Act). Then, as part of the judicial application, both Cabinet and Court also considered this issue with full knowledge of these incidents and did not see these as an impediment to performing well in the judiciary.

I'd be happy to elaborate on any of this or answer specific questions, though note that there will be some things I can't talk about for reasons of confidentiality and/or privacy.

Reply

Has the cabinet taken into consideration Griffindor's, at times, shady past within the South Pacific and other regions?

Yes. In fact, we even asked the Court explicitly if they had considered it in the opinion they provided to us. That being said, I'd like to note for the record that your phrasing suggests much more shady activity than there really was.

The "shady past", as you called it, comprises two incidents. The first was Griffindor's removal of Legislator Status in early 2018 for, essentially, using two accounts to vote. At the time of the removal, it was left open by the investigating entities whether formal charges would be pressed against Griffindor for the incident. That was not done, however, in part due to specific extenuating circumstances that I cannot elaborate upon. Nonetheless, Griffindor went on a sort of "self-imposed exile", moving to Balder for some time. The second incident is what led to his removal from Balder after a guilty conviction of treason earlier this year. Many of you will likely have heard about this from an article in NationStates Today, but the article missed a few key facts. For example, the article did not mention that three other high level government officials, including the then-incumbent Staatsminister (their equivalent to our Prime Minister position), were just as involved as Griffindor was in "Operation Heimdall", but were granted full immunity for their testimony against specifically Griffindor. Griffindor testified, and maintains plausibly to this day, that Operation Heimdall did not seek to overthrow the Balder government, but rather to introduce additional democratic elements to the monarchy.

To even get to this point, those two incidents had been evaluated and cleared by four distinct entities. First, as part of his Legislator application, both the Legislator Committee and the Council on Regional Security had full knowledge of these incidents and cleared Griffindor for not applying in bad faith and not being a security threat, respectively (as specified in the Legislator Committee Act). Then, as part of the judicial application, both Cabinet and Court also considered this issue with full knowledge of these incidents and did not see these as an impediment to performing well in the judiciary.

I'd be happy to elaborate on any of this or answer specific questions, though note that there will be some things I can't talk about for reasons of confidentiality and/or privacy. 

I know that you said you wouldn't elaborate upon it, but, If I may ask, are there any of the 'extenuating circumstances' you alluded to that you can share with us?

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

Reply

I know that you said you wouldn't elaborate upon it, but, If I may ask, are there any of the 'extenuating circumstances' you alluded to that you can share with us?

I cannot share any details on the circumstances without violating the privacy of multiple individuals. What I can add, however, is that the circumstances I've alluded to are such that a repeat offense is incredibly unlikely, in the estimation of those that are familiar with the details.

Reply