|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 3, 2018 15:31:31 GMT -6
I am aware of numerous cases where courts have invalidated the specific or general votes of a legislator. Is that the objection, here? That the judiciary should never issue injunctions affecting the legislature?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Sept 3, 2018 16:17:26 GMT -6
I am aware of numerous cases where courts have invalidated the specific or general votes of a legislator. Is that the objection, here? That the judiciary should never issue injunctions affecting the legislature? a) Give examples; b) I think you're missing the essential ridiculousness of a Justice issuing an injunction against himself in his capacity of a legislator. This is a nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 3, 2018 18:14:57 GMT -6
I am aware of numerous cases where courts have invalidated the specific or general votes of a legislator. Is that the objection, here? That the judiciary should never issue injunctions affecting the legislature? a) Give examples; b) I think you're missing the essential ridiculousness of a Justice issuing an injunction against himself in his capacity of a legislator. This is a nonsense. In the United States, it is well-settled that the Courts cannot tell the Legislature how to act. The extent of the Court's power is to invalidate or enjoin a law that contravenes the Constitution. Mr. Alexandreu is mistaken. Nevertheless, he seemingly countenances the use of homophobic language to attack Talossans. I have asked him, to no avail, what grounds he would find removal appropriate. He has not answered. Further, he seems to think my personal life, much like his kin's, is the appropriate brunt of a joke. Being as this joke involved my personal life, and being as he continues to defend it, I see no bar to introduce his personal life into the conversation. Hence, my question is, at what point does Mr. Alexandreu cast aside his hypocrisy and actually take a moral and ethical stand instead of placing party over country? Edit by Glüc da Dhi (6 sep 2018) re violation of Witt.#11: Changed non-Talossan name to Talossan name. Do not revert this edit. Edit by Viteu Marcianüus (20 Sept 2018) as Glüc da Dhi has shown a complete disregard for well-settled parliamentary immunity and the protections enumerated in the Organic Law, and has abused his power as Secretary of State
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 3, 2018 18:16:53 GMT -6
I don't have names on hand, but I'll dig some up and get back to you.
I agree that it's a little silly, but being a little silly is not an impeachable offense. Indeed, if it had been an injunction against someone else, that might be a different story, but against himself?
I'll issue an injunction against myself right now: Alexandreu is hereby enjoined from finishing the rest of the bag of gummy bears.
I plan to hold myself in contempt later for defiance of this injunction.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Sept 3, 2018 18:22:58 GMT -6
I agree that it's a little silly, but being a little silly is not an impeachable offense. No, I say it's a sign of incompetence, and of misusing judicial powers for political ends. And both are impeachable offences. I and the other FreeDems have been saying it for most of the last year; Talossa's constitution is shaky if the CpI is a laughing stock, and "silly" things like this make it a laughing stock. It's no wonder the King pouted and whined about his defeat in the Proclamation Crisis if this is the kind of thing we accept from CpI justices - one rotten apple spoils the barrel. We need a CpI that we can respect - not an "unelected third house of the Ziu" as it was under KR1. And "enjoining yourself" is even sillier than what used to happen 20 years ago, when MC Ián Bloggeu would vote on a bill, then Senator Ián Bloggeu would vote on it as well, and then CpI Justice Ián Bloggeu would declare it inOrganic. I want to go back to 3 CpI justices and an inferior Cort, btw.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 3, 2018 18:24:15 GMT -6
V, would you please stop using my English name, and edit it out of your above post?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 3, 2018 18:26:51 GMT -6
I agree that it's a little silly, but being a little silly is not an impeachable offense. No, I say it's a sign of incompetence. And incompetence is an impeachable offence. I and the other FreeDems have been saying it for most of the last year; Talossa's constitution is shaky if the CpI is a laughing stock, and "silly" things like this make it a laughing stock. It's no wonder the King pouted and whined about his defeat in the Proclamation Crisis if this is the kind of thing we accept from CpI justices - one rotten apple spoils the barrel. We need a CpI that we can respect - not an "unelected third house of the Ziu" as it was under KR1. And "enjoining yourself" is even sillier than what used to happen 20 years ago, when MC Ián Bloggeu would vote on a bill, then Senator Ián Bloggeu would vote on it as well, and then CpI Justice Ián Bloggeu would declare it inOrganic. This is a fair argument, but it's not the one made by the bill. The bill calls it an abuse of power -- I suppose he's abusing his power in order to torment himself? I'm just not sure this rises to the level of impeachment, even if we cede that it was dumb. Frankly, we just don't have the people to start removing them over things like that. Still, fair point. I want to go back to 3 CpI justices and an inferior Cort, btw. We don't have three very active justices, much less more than that.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 3, 2018 18:28:00 GMT -6
I see no reason to honor the wishes of a homophobe's defender, S:reu Davi[]s[].
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 3, 2018 18:30:29 GMT -6
This is a very widely-respected convention in Talossa of many years, considering how we all know so much about each other. Only a few years ago a coward of our acquaintance to get me fired, calling my boss, their boss, and their bosses' boss.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 3, 2018 18:34:42 GMT -6
As you point out, convention is not law. Therefore, I owe no duty to honor it. You made this personal; I'm responding-in-kind. My personal life is the gravamen of this bill. You're arguing against it; you invite yours to be included, s:reu Davi[]s[]. Please note, the last two posts does not use your English name, but my autocorrect seems to be omitting letters.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 3, 2018 18:44:31 GMT -6
I mean, it's not like the photo and name aren't on Wiki. Something, thanks to your efforts, cannot be removed once posted. So... yeah. Live with it.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 3, 2018 18:45:38 GMT -6
I have very much not made this personal. I have replied, from first to last, entirely on the merits of the bill. You have decided that my reluctance to support the bill, as currently badly drafted, is a personal attack, but that is not reasonable.
Please edit your post and use my Talossan name, so I can continue to accord you the same respect.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 3, 2018 18:49:23 GMT -6
I'm going by the guidance of wiki. Shall I post the link, S:reu ALEXandreu DAVIneScu?
It is personal. My personal life, according to you, is an appropriate joke. You've accorded neither me nor your brother any respect here. Don't spin your way out of this, S:reu DAVIneScu.
-Vito Oliver.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 3, 2018 19:01:25 GMT -6
There is a lot more in the bill than that. Many of the other provisions are specious and have little backing.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 3, 2018 19:04:27 GMT -6
That you waited until the eve of clarking to really attack. So no, S:reu DAVI[]S[], i see no issue here.
|
|