Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Dec 31, 2018 17:31:46 GMT -6
On the other hand, we did have to reshuffle the entire bench in 2012. I can personally think of at least one current Justice who I wouldn't vote to confirm today (and not because of demerit).
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 7, 2019 19:46:36 GMT -6
The answer is no, incidentally. And we have only impeached a justice once, which was accomplished without resort to the malfeasance clause (since it was done partially based on fabricated reasons). Wow, you just can't tell the truth, can you?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 8, 2019 9:41:58 GMT -6
One of the stated reasons for impeachment was breaking a rule that doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 9, 2019 16:25:36 GMT -6
Unless there is further commentary, I will submit this bill for the upcoming Clark.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jan 9, 2019 16:46:57 GMT -6
Unless there is further commentary, I will submit this bill for the upcoming Clark. Wait...but the new Organic Law as a whole, which contains these changes, will also be on the upcoming Clark.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 9, 2019 22:14:41 GMT -6
I suppose I could roughly say that I have maybe three comments, since you have grudgingly edited your bill with regards to several issues (thanks, by the way!)
1. You want to create a court with three seats, but there are four justices. Nothing in the bill removes any justices, as far as I can see. What is the plan? Who you firing?
2. The Ziu regularly re-electing members of another branch of government seems like a problem in terms of balance of powers.
3. The Ziu setting rules for lower courts also seems like it's a problem in terms of balance of powers. A simple majority could impose a rule that gives them power to advance or slow cases, for example. It wouldn't require much ingenuity. That seems like a big problem.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 10, 2019 4:47:34 GMT -6
(1) Already answered - everyone is fired and new Justices are appointed.
(2) No.
(3) Stop this bullshit. This is how it works in the US, and this is exactly what you're advocating for with your bill.
Does your party sit around and study trump to adopt his tactics? Are you even capable of honest debate?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 10, 2019 11:05:38 GMT -6
1. I don't see that in the bill. Maybe I just missed it? 2. Um... well, we disagree. I guess I plan to vote against this, then, and I will inform other people that I think there is a fairly enormous problem here inasmuch as the Ziu would be electing the high court at regular intervals is bad prima facie. 3. I hadn't realized the issue with my bill until you pointed it out, for which I am grateful. So I am going to fix it! Whiiiiiich brings us back to your bill...
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 20, 2019 16:19:06 GMT -6
Is your only remaining issue that the Ziu would have regular intervals to elect high court positions? You do realize that this would be every five years, and it's presumed that unless authorized, it's automatic confirmation. It is not bad prima facie - you haven't actually explained why it's bad.
Also, as we've discussed elsewhere, we need to amend the Org Law in order to impose concrete rules on the Justices. You say that Ben-Ard was impeached for, among other things, breaching a rule that doesn't exist. You say that he had no obligation to appear (although, as discussed last year when I was A-G and issued my report, I take a different interpretation of the organic provision to appear before the court in a case).
Okay, let's put this aside for a moment and speak only to the merits of this bill. Let's say we keep lifetime appointments but amend the Organic Law to provide that the Ziu can impose ethics and rules by which the Justices of the UC must abide. How would you apply that on a sitting Justice? When they accepted the position, they knew the rules and ethics beforehand. Retroactively applying new rules could be seen as trying to force someone off. Say you don't like Justice ABC, you can set a new rule that he or she is suddenly in breach. One of the benefits of reappointment is to give the Ziu the ability to allow Justice ABC to agree to a new rule.
Now, you take issue with regular intervals. People will leave and be appointed at different times, so while it's possible, I find it highly unlikely that the entire Cort would need to be reconfirmed at the same time. But that said, what is exactly wrong with setting five-year terms? The Ziu already does so in regular intervals because, well, UC Justices rarely last five years.
So outside of being against this bill simply because it comes from me, on what grounds do you think giving the Ziu, which would have gone through five elections, a say in reconfirming a Justice, every five years, is prima facie bad?
Also, do you not trust the Talossan electorate enough to hold the Ziu accountable if it engages in political vendettas to deny a Justice reconfirmation?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 20, 2019 22:28:48 GMT -6
I have been regularly posting a list of the same things. You have grudgingly addressed three of them, and three remain. I have never opposed the bill simply because you proposed it... if you hadn't noticed, you're the only one lashing out with frequent personal attacks. I have consistently been speaking of the merits. 1. The first one is that you want to create a court with three seats, but there are four justices. Nothing in the bill removes any justices, as far as I can see. You said that the bill takes care of it, so maybe I just missed that language? Could you please show me what you're talking about? 2. The second issue is that the Ziu regularly re-electing members of another branch of government seems like a problem in terms of balance of powers. We do have the Ziu appoint people to the position, but that is subject to a royal veto, and it is thereafter without limit. Your bill institutes regular re-election by the Ziu and eliminates the royal veto, turning it into a one-month delay. What you are proposing would thus render the court a subsidiary of the Ziu, since the Ziu would be regularly choosing members of the court by itself. If I value my position on the court, then I will want to be re-elected by the Ziu (my bosses). It might not be explicit, but that's not how undue influence works, after all. I will just tend to favor members of the Ziu over anyone else, for example, such as folks without an elected position. I mean, look at what you're proposing: the legislature would be regularly and exclusively picking the whole judiciary, which would in turn be responsible for deciding the cases that might limit the legislature's power or how it interacts with the throne. Did you stop to think about that? It's a pretty bad idea even if the royal check on this appointment power were maintained, but it's downright crazy when it's removed. Imagine if the monarch were able to pick the justices every five years without real input from the Ziu... would you be cool with that? Me neither. Also, do you not trust the Talossan electorate enough to hold the Ziu accountable if it engages in political vendettas to deny a Justice reconfirmation? Of course not! And neither should you! You're proposing handing one part of our government vastly more power than the rest, overturning any system of checks or balances that might conceivably exist... you shouldn't be thinking, "How can I construct this based on the trust that everyone will act wisely and nobly?" Giving a majority in the Ziu the power to entrench themselves through control of the courts is a recipe for corruption that has little to do with the electorate. Few voters have ever chosen a party out of the hope that they'd seize permanent power. I trust the king, but if you asked me to sign on to a bill that handed him alone the power to appoint all the justices, I'd laugh in your face. Since he won't always be king, and he might not always be worthy of trust. At the minimum, this provision should be scrapped and the current approach should be retained. You yourself just said that we seldom keep justices for so long... so what is the point of this? Why break the system to solve a problem that you yourself admit doesn't exist? Also, as we've discussed elsewhere, we need to amend the Org Law in order to impose concrete rules on the Justices. You say that Ben-Ard was impeached for, among other things, breaching a rule that doesn't exist. You say that he had no obligation to appear (although, as discussed last year when I was A-G and issued my report, I take a different interpretation of the organic provision to appear before the court in a case). I didn't say that, the bill you wrote says that. It does not cite the rules of the court it is claiming that he broke, and you could not identify them during the debate on the bill. I could not find any such rule in my own search. Nonetheless, he was removed for breaking these rules that no one can find and which do not (as far as I can tell) exist. I would be happy to quote your bill to you again, if you need the text in front of you. But anyway... 3. The third issue is that the Ziu setting rules for lower courts also seems like it's a problem in terms of balance of powers. A simple majority could impose a rule that gives them power to advance or slow cases, for example. Given your comments here and in the other thread, I am no longer clear on your beliefs on this matter. You're here proposing that the Ziu be given that power, but in the other bill you declared such provisions to be a problem with separation of powers. I said that was a good point and I'd have to change my bill... but yours remains the same, which is puzzling. Is it the difference between the high and low courts? That seems plausible.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 25, 2019 16:08:35 GMT -6
In summary - you're against reasonable checks and balances. Okay, good to know.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 28, 2019 15:45:27 GMT -6
...what? That doesn't even pretend to respond to any of the things I said. Letting the legislature pick the judiciary is not a "reasonable check or balance!"
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 31, 2019 11:13:59 GMT -6
The Legislature already picks the judiciary.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 31, 2019 14:31:23 GMT -6
They do not regularly elect them, and they don't do so alone!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 31, 2019 14:46:02 GMT -6
I do see that four days ago you added some language to finally remove some justices. Great! Why couldn't you just say, "Huh, you're right" and fix that like three months ago? What did it take you... like five minutes? I feel like we've been through that process like four times now, as you grudgingly agree to fix glaring errors after being asked about them over and over. So, that does leave the crushingly serious separation of powers problem. That is still a major concern. But since you just Clarked this, I guess no more fixing can be done.
|
|