|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Sept 15, 2009 19:10:16 GMT -6
WHEREAS a Justice of the Cort pü Înalt, in English the Uppermost Cort, sits on the Cort for life and
WHEREAS the Organic Law forbids a Justice holding any other office and
WHEREAS this leads to fairly inactive Justices causing both delays in the legal system and the disappearance of highly respected Talossans, so
THEREFORE, Article XVI Section 3 of the Organic Law is hereby amended to read:
Neither a reigning King nor his Consort, nor a Regent during his regency, nor the Secretary of State, nor the Seneschal shall be a Justice of the Uppermost Cort or a judge in any inferior court that the Ziu may create. Nor shall any Senator or Member of the Cosa be a Justice of the Uppermost Cort.
Uréu q'estadra så: The Right Honourable Éovart Grischun, Minister of Culture, MC for PP & FGP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 16, 2009 1:34:18 GMT -6
I am voting against this so hard it's going to vote against several other items in the past. King Robert I is going to be parading around in his living room with the newly-designed first version of the flag with a couple of friends and his family, and POOF there will appear on the living room table a scrap of paper with my Contra vote on it. That's how hard I am going to vote against this.
Like most modern democracies, we have a separation of powers. Allowing one of the houses of our legislature (why only one anyway?) to also be in the highest judiciary is in direct contravention of that valuable asset and just puts out a big welcome sign for corruption.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 5:54:06 GMT -6
Senator Davis, this is my friend tact, tact, meet Senator Davis.....
Éovart, I can appreciate the spirit. However, one of the reasons why folks don't want to make this change is that it disrupts the system of checks and balances. A Justice has to be able to make decisions on the law without prejudice. However, if that Justice also co-sponsored a particular bill which then became law, I'm sure you can see the potential conflict.
Worse yet, what if a Justice who opposed a bill that passed uses a court case to basically kill a piece of legislation they personally don't like?
I will say that the U.S. had a similar situation with Supreme Court Justices. They wouldn't leave the bench, no matter how old or infirm they became. The U.S. allowed for them to retire, after age 70 and if they have 10 years of federal judicial service, at their current pay.
What if we had some incentive for Justices to voluntarily leave once they reach a certain point of inactivity?
Though we could not legislate such a thing, if an outgoing Justice was given a peerage upon leaving, that might be an incentive.
If "retiring" also gave you a place of honour within a lower court (where you presently can serve in both the legislature and the court), that might prove worthy as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Sept 16, 2009 14:06:08 GMT -6
Sorry bud. I agree on a lot of things with you as you know. This is not one of them.
This is an excellent idea. What if we had a rotating opinion system where each justice would give the Cort's opinion once every three trials? Failure to do so within a month of consideration twice would result in expulsion from the Cort.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Sept 16, 2009 17:44:18 GMT -6
Tim: Totally follow that. My thought was more along this line. A few paragraphs down in the OrgLaw we have a passage about a Justice removing himself when conflicts arise. Perhaps your right, too much shade of grey in that line of argument.
However, I knew I would provoke this reaction which is the point I did this, to start a discussion on the topic. I know its not a big problem, but its still an issue. The fact has been highlighted by the recent nomination to the bench and the number of non votes for the same partcular reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2009 15:47:52 GMT -6
Just because Justices cannot be MCs or Senators does not mean they cannot participate in the legislative process. What if the UC had sessions just like the Ziu? During a specified time period, the Justices review all proposed legislature. If they find something to be inorganic, they can't stop it (unless we make some major changes to the system) but they can give King John a heads up, and if necessary, recommend a veto.
Such sessions can also be used to hear cases brought before the UC.
If Justices are falling inactive, why don't we involve them in the process so they can actively participate?
|
|
