A speech against the Clarked impeachment bill.
Aug 30, 2018 23:51:48 GMT -6
Sir C. M. Siervicül likes this
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 30, 2018 23:51:48 GMT -6
My fellow MZs, a moment if you will?
I was recently discussing a proposed bill to impeach Justice Ardpresteir from the Cort pu Inalt. I didn't understand some of the charges, and I asked for clarification. But the sponsor has ignored my request for help, and he has Clarked the bill. So I can no longer try to improve it. I have to urge you to vote against this version, instead. Even if you think it has merit in some part, vote against it and vote for a future, better version, instead.
The bill proposes this as its action:
"BE IT RESOLVED that the Kingdom of Talossa cannot countenance a sitting Puisne Justice who refuses to appear in Cort when a named party, cannot preside over most matters commenced because of conflicts his actions have caused, openly attacks Talossans on the basis of their sexual orientation with overtly homophobic and sexist language, and who has shown a gross disregard for any sense of propriety for his position as a Puisne Justice, having abused its authority, and as such, upon this act meeting the Organic requirements stated herein, Béneditsch Ardpresteir shall no longer sit as a Puisne Justice of the Uppermost Cort of Talossa, and shall have all the privileges associated with that position revoked."
In other words, this bill says, "You did these particular things, judge, and we think they are so wrong that we are kicking you off the highest court for them."
That's a big deal.
What are these particular things? What merits kicking this guy off the highest court?
But here's the thing: at least some of these are nonsense, as far as I can tell. And that's a problem. We can't start kicking justices off of the Cort pu Inalt for nonsense. We can't make a lumpy laundry list of accusations that might make sense and might not. Each item will have consequences -- some of them quite serious. We have to get it right.
Look at them in detail.
Refusal to appear in Cort when a named party.
As proof of this allegation, the bill cites this case: talossa.proboards.com/thread/9657/appeal-case-02a-dal-benard But Justice Ardpresteir didn't "refuse to appear," since he wasn't called on to appear. His lawyer (me!) did so, on his behalf. What about this is cause for removal from the bench?
The other case cited in the bill's Whereas is here: talossa.proboards.com/thread/12500/talossa-ben-ard-et-al?page=1&scrollTo=155850 But as far as I can see from looking at it, he declined to appear in court and a default judgment was granted. He wasn't called upon as an officer of the court to testify or anything... he just decided not to contest the case. Allowing a default judgment doesn't seem like cause for impeachment. There's no rule saying you must show up! You only have to show up when the Cort actually requires it (with a subpoena, for example).
We're going to remove a justice from the Cort pu Inalt for... this? That's a recipe for politics taking over the justice system. If arbitrary nonsense can be used to justify an impeachment, then it's just about who has the votes!
Cannot preside due to personal conflicts.
The Whereas clause states that Justice Ardpresteir has recused himself from cases where he has a conflict, when proper. As one example, it offers this case: talossa.proboards.com/post/130454/thread The other cases all seem to be similar -- just proper recusals, undertaken by someone who doesn't want a conflict of interest to sully the justice system.
This really confuses me. Are we impeaching people for good judicial ethics? Should Justice Ardpresteir have not recused himself?
If the complaint is that Justice Ardpresteir is too cautious about ethical conflict, then surely a simple message would have sufficed? Is that the message we wish to send... that you won't get in trouble if you refuse to recuse from a case, but you might get in trouble if you recuse too much?
Attacks others with overtly homophobic and sexist language.
This is the charge that many people feel has the most merit. I will point you to the Justice's own explanation of it: talossa.proboards.com/post/159495/thread
You might not buy that explanation. You might not understand that explanation. But even if you think this charge has merit, remember it's not the only charge -- and that's why I stand here before you tonight.
Abused judicial authority.
Only one bit of evidence is provided: a case in which Justice Ardpresteir engaged in suo moto injunctions: talossa.proboards.com/thread/12483/moto-action-respect-51st-cosa?page=1&scrollTo=155719
I also had to look up suo moto, since I'd never heard of it. A suo moto case is brought by a court itself, rather than any other party. It's a legal phenomenon not accepted in most courts, but it is quite common in India (where BenArd practices) and Pakistan. In India, it's actually enshrined in the Constitution (Article 32), which says in part, "The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed." It's considered quite important, described by former Indian chief justice BP Gajendradkar as the "cornerstone of the democratic edifice raised by the Constitution."
Suo moto cases are not permitted in British or American courts, as far as I know, so they have no place in Talossan law (which looks to established Anglo-American principles of law as a guide, under the OrgLaw). It looks like Justice Ardpresteir was mistaken in his injunctions for that reason, and an empaneled court would certainly have told him that before he made the error.
But at worst, this seems like an innocent error of law stemming from a very real and sharp discrepancy in background. Can this rise to an impeachable offense of "abusing authority?"
We've generally tried to be forgiving and welcoming to everyone, regardless of their cultural background. But despite the Talossans all around the world, our entire legal system (every other practicing lawyer or judge!) is either British or American... with one exception. You're trying to impeach that one exception, and it looks a little ugly that part of the reason is that he lives in India and so is more familiar with Indian law.
I am convinced that the sponsor of this bill doesn't really care about most of these charges. He only cares about one charge -- the charge of "overtly homophobic language." The rest of this is nonsense, and we can't impeach a justice over it. Send this bill back and demand a clean one.
Remember that we're not just governing for the now. Your vote has consequences.
I was recently discussing a proposed bill to impeach Justice Ardpresteir from the Cort pu Inalt. I didn't understand some of the charges, and I asked for clarification. But the sponsor has ignored my request for help, and he has Clarked the bill. So I can no longer try to improve it. I have to urge you to vote against this version, instead. Even if you think it has merit in some part, vote against it and vote for a future, better version, instead.
The bill proposes this as its action:
"BE IT RESOLVED that the Kingdom of Talossa cannot countenance a sitting Puisne Justice who refuses to appear in Cort when a named party, cannot preside over most matters commenced because of conflicts his actions have caused, openly attacks Talossans on the basis of their sexual orientation with overtly homophobic and sexist language, and who has shown a gross disregard for any sense of propriety for his position as a Puisne Justice, having abused its authority, and as such, upon this act meeting the Organic requirements stated herein, Béneditsch Ardpresteir shall no longer sit as a Puisne Justice of the Uppermost Cort of Talossa, and shall have all the privileges associated with that position revoked."
In other words, this bill says, "You did these particular things, judge, and we think they are so wrong that we are kicking you off the highest court for them."
That's a big deal.
What are these particular things? What merits kicking this guy off the highest court?
- Refusal to appear in Cort when a named party.
- Cannot preside due to personal conflicts.
- Attacks others with overtly homophobic and sexist language.
- Abused judicial authority.
But here's the thing: at least some of these are nonsense, as far as I can tell. And that's a problem. We can't start kicking justices off of the Cort pu Inalt for nonsense. We can't make a lumpy laundry list of accusations that might make sense and might not. Each item will have consequences -- some of them quite serious. We have to get it right.
Look at them in detail.
Refusal to appear in Cort when a named party.
As proof of this allegation, the bill cites this case: talossa.proboards.com/thread/9657/appeal-case-02a-dal-benard But Justice Ardpresteir didn't "refuse to appear," since he wasn't called on to appear. His lawyer (me!) did so, on his behalf. What about this is cause for removal from the bench?
The other case cited in the bill's Whereas is here: talossa.proboards.com/thread/12500/talossa-ben-ard-et-al?page=1&scrollTo=155850 But as far as I can see from looking at it, he declined to appear in court and a default judgment was granted. He wasn't called upon as an officer of the court to testify or anything... he just decided not to contest the case. Allowing a default judgment doesn't seem like cause for impeachment. There's no rule saying you must show up! You only have to show up when the Cort actually requires it (with a subpoena, for example).
We're going to remove a justice from the Cort pu Inalt for... this? That's a recipe for politics taking over the justice system. If arbitrary nonsense can be used to justify an impeachment, then it's just about who has the votes!
Cannot preside due to personal conflicts.
The Whereas clause states that Justice Ardpresteir has recused himself from cases where he has a conflict, when proper. As one example, it offers this case: talossa.proboards.com/post/130454/thread The other cases all seem to be similar -- just proper recusals, undertaken by someone who doesn't want a conflict of interest to sully the justice system.
This really confuses me. Are we impeaching people for good judicial ethics? Should Justice Ardpresteir have not recused himself?
If the complaint is that Justice Ardpresteir is too cautious about ethical conflict, then surely a simple message would have sufficed? Is that the message we wish to send... that you won't get in trouble if you refuse to recuse from a case, but you might get in trouble if you recuse too much?
Attacks others with overtly homophobic and sexist language.
This is the charge that many people feel has the most merit. I will point you to the Justice's own explanation of it: talossa.proboards.com/post/159495/thread
You might not buy that explanation. You might not understand that explanation. But even if you think this charge has merit, remember it's not the only charge -- and that's why I stand here before you tonight.
Abused judicial authority.
Only one bit of evidence is provided: a case in which Justice Ardpresteir engaged in suo moto injunctions: talossa.proboards.com/thread/12483/moto-action-respect-51st-cosa?page=1&scrollTo=155719
I also had to look up suo moto, since I'd never heard of it. A suo moto case is brought by a court itself, rather than any other party. It's a legal phenomenon not accepted in most courts, but it is quite common in India (where BenArd practices) and Pakistan. In India, it's actually enshrined in the Constitution (Article 32), which says in part, "The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed." It's considered quite important, described by former Indian chief justice BP Gajendradkar as the "cornerstone of the democratic edifice raised by the Constitution."
Suo moto cases are not permitted in British or American courts, as far as I know, so they have no place in Talossan law (which looks to established Anglo-American principles of law as a guide, under the OrgLaw). It looks like Justice Ardpresteir was mistaken in his injunctions for that reason, and an empaneled court would certainly have told him that before he made the error.
But at worst, this seems like an innocent error of law stemming from a very real and sharp discrepancy in background. Can this rise to an impeachable offense of "abusing authority?"
We've generally tried to be forgiving and welcoming to everyone, regardless of their cultural background. But despite the Talossans all around the world, our entire legal system (every other practicing lawyer or judge!) is either British or American... with one exception. You're trying to impeach that one exception, and it looks a little ugly that part of the reason is that he lives in India and so is more familiar with Indian law.
I am convinced that the sponsor of this bill doesn't really care about most of these charges. He only cares about one charge -- the charge of "overtly homophobic language." The rest of this is nonsense, and we can't impeach a justice over it. Send this bill back and demand a clean one.
Remember that we're not just governing for the now. Your vote has consequences.