|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 31, 2019 22:42:37 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? Not four days ago.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 31, 2019 22:47:57 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? Not four days ago. lol and you were just embarrassed to say you added in this stuff? Look, it's fine. I do still think that it's deeply flawed to subordinate the judiciary to the legislative, but I'm glad we were able to get some things fixed. Bon chance
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Apr 16, 2019 8:24:41 GMT -6
It is my full intention to rehopper this to overcome the King's veto.
I intend to co-hopper a revised version to address some of the issues that, it passed, would nullify this amendment. I still think the above amendment, with its faults, is better than what we have now.
I will say, I dont think removing whether a Senator can be a Justice is inappropriate. To me, there is no substantive distinction between an MC and Senator in this context. Other prohibitions, such as the SOS or monarch, should remain.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 23, 2019 9:40:18 GMT -6
OK, suppose this Amendment passes at the next election. Instantly, we would have no Uppermost Cort, because all the Justices will have been removed. Is that safe? Is that sensible? Is that equitable?
And then, the winning Party or coalition in the next election appoints the one or two Justices who will constitute the entire Cort for at least the next seven months or so. That puts way too much *Judicial* power in the hands of one single Prime Minster, whoever it may turn out to be.
In the United States, we generally have quite a range of political opinions on the Supreme Court, because they've been appointed by Presidents from different parties. That seems to work pretty well most of the time. It would not work at all — it might prove an unmitigated disaster — if all nine Justices were to quit or be removed simultaneously, and one President get to appoint the entire Court.
Do we really want that for Talossa?
— John R
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Apr 23, 2019 10:37:51 GMT -6
First, I edited my post above to "inappropriate." I think that was clear from context but a typo is a typo.
Second, my intention is to introduce the revised amendment and the original amendment concurrently. Work is a bit busy at the moment so I have not had time to draft the revised amendment to hopper. I imagine I will have it posted, the latest, in time for the second clark. I do not read a provision in the Organic Law that requires a vetoed amendment be clarked in the immediate subsequent clark.
In any event, your concern, which I think is fair, would also come to fruition if the entire UC decided to retire today. Under the proposed amendment, the PM still needs 2/3 of the Cosa and a majority of senators to confirm a nominee. So I don't think one PM wields an awesome amount of power. I trust the Cosa to prevent a party from court stacking.
Because I cannot change any part of the original amendment, the revised version will seek to address this. I am open to something along the following--to prevent court stacking, after ratification and promulgation, the PM that then holds the office, provided this is not during a general election, shall nominate one Justice to the Cort, and the Ziu will then confirm. In the following Cosa, the PM will nominate the remaining two, and the Ziu will then confirm. Only after all three Justices are nominated and confirmed can the amendment take effect. Any subsequent nomination to the current Cort, after promulgation and ratification, shall be deemed as a nomination to the reconstituted Cort, provided it occurs in the appropriate Cosa.
I think this will address the issue of continuity and cort stacking. It spreads nominations across two Cosas, which may result in the same PM but gives the people a say, and ensures that Talossa is not without a UC.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 23, 2019 10:46:28 GMT -6
Thank you. This makes sense. But why not simply continue the current Justices in office, and replace them as occasionally necessary with Justices chosen (and term-limited) according to the new Amendment? It seems a bit, I don't know, inequitable maybe, to fire someone from a "good behaviour" position when his or her behaviour has in fact been good.
And again, let me ask this. Why not simply keep the "good behaviour" standard for Justices? An independent judiciary isn't something to jettison lightly.
— John R
Editing: I said "jettison", but I probably should have said something less dramatic, like "weaken" or "impair".
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Apr 23, 2019 11:01:07 GMT -6
We have four justices at the moment, so one would need to retire. This could very well become a popularity contest that I'd like to avoid.
Also with all due respect to the Cort*, I do think we need some new Justices who can be a bit more responsive. A driving force behind this amendment is to provide a type of fresh start for the Cort. Our Justices are good, but, and understandably so, they could stand to follow the dates they set and issue decisions in a timely fashion (I know this is rich coming). Personally, although he and I do not always see eye-to-eye on legal issues or politics, I'd like to see Sir Cresti on the new Cort. As I sit here today, he would have my vote.
I am amiable to language that a current sitting justice is only subject to a "simple confirmation" to retain their seat on a new vote if put forward by the PM.
Also, as the amendment will maintain the five-year term, the two-cosa spread could serve the purpose of staggering those terms, as the term of the first will be measured from confirmation, not reformation (provided that it doesn't take the Ziu three years to nominate new justices).
*I never say "with all due respect to the court" in a brief or in court.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 23, 2019 11:53:31 GMT -6
Bolding all the basic drafting errors to be fixed. There are twelve of them in this short passage, so far as I can see. I will check the rest when I have a chance. 2. A Justice of the Uppermost Cort shall be appointed to sit for a single term, which shall be measured in intervals of five years, but may be extended to no more of ten years by the Ziu, provided it is equally applied to all members. (A) During the second to last Clark before a Justice's term ends, if no action is taken, then the justice is reconfirmed by operation law; or (B) the PM or another member may move by accalamation to reappoint a justice. If no is objection os made in two weels, the motion is adopted. (B) If acclamation fails. then the ziu shall vote - if the nominee gets 2/3 votes, they are confirmed. (C) If the vote fails, then the PM may choose to nominate the Justice once more, whom shall oy require a simple majority . (D) A Justice shall hold that seat until such time as they resign, are removed, or are no longer ale to perform their duties on account of incapacitation, as defined by law. 3. The Uppermost Cort shall consist of no less than two Pusine Justices and one Chief Justice, which may be extended to no more than eight Pusine Justices as the Ziu may desire, provided that legislation has the support of two-thirds of both houses of the Ziu, but such an increase shall not result in an even number of Justices.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 23, 2019 12:10:01 GMT -6
2. A Justice of the Uppermost Cort shall be appointed to sit for a single term, By whom? Why is this organized in such a way that we're describing the appointment twice -- once here, in the passive voice, and then later more specifically? This seems confusing, and I'm trying to imagine a layman unfamiliar with the law trying to sort this out. Is there some reason for having two sections about appointment procedures and their requirements? The law should be easily readable by everyone, including English language learners, as much as possible. which shall be measured in intervals of five years, but may be extended to no more of ten years by the Ziu, provided it is equally applied to all members. This should probably be rephrased. If someone has sat on the bench for eight years, how can an increase of five years for all justices be fairly applied if granted to another justice? Seems a confusing way to do this. Why not just have term limits? Are we really anticipating needing to add three years to a justice's tenure, but being unwilling to make it five? Hard to imagine that circumstance. (A) During the second to last Clark before a Justice's term ends, if no action is taken, then the justice is reconfirmed by operation law; or (B) the PM or another member may move by accalamation to reappoint a justice. If no is objection os made in two weels, the motion is adopted. (B) If acclamation fails. then the ziu shall vote - if the nominee gets 2/3 votes, they are confirmed. (C) If the vote fails, then the PM may choose to nominate the Justice once more, whom shall oy require a simple majority . (D) A Justice shall hold that seat until such time as they resign, are removed, or are no longer ale to perform their duties on account of incapacitation, as defined by law. 3. The Uppermost Cort shall consist of no less than two Pusine Justices and one Chief Justice, which may be extended to no more than eight Pusine Justices as the Ziu may desire, provided that legislation has the support of two-thirds of both houses of the Ziu, but such an increase shall not result in an even number of Justices. It would also help clarity if there were consistency. Supermajority support is described in three different ways in these passages. 4. In the event the Uppermost Cort consists of two Justices, and those Justices are in agreement, the Court shall have its decision followed but that decision shall not establish precedent until a quorum of three issues a determination. What is this referring to? If it's about the most basic power of the judiciary, deciding cases, as I think (?) it is, shouldn't it be in the section labeled to that purpose? 2. In all cases affecting the Kingdom of Talossa, the Uppermost Cort shall have original jurisdiction, and in all cases previously mentioned, the Uppermost Cort shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, when the Ziu has set forth inferior courts, with such exceptions and under such regulations for those matters concerning administrative law as the Ziu shall make, which may be limited to appellate jurisdiction as to matters of law.
3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury. This is very confusing. Does it have to be phrased so confusingly? I'm a native English speaker, professional English teacher, and lawyer, and it took me a bit to get it. It doesn't seem like a very difficult set of concepts, but maybe there is some technical reasoning that is beyond my ken. I mean, why can't we just say, "In all cases under Talossan law, the Cort pu Inalt shall have jurisdiction. The only exceptions shall be made by law if and when the Ziu creates an inferior cort, and in these cases the Cort pu Inalt shall have appellate jurisdiction." Then a reader only might need to google a couple of words to understand what's going on here.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 23, 2019 12:21:33 GMT -6
2. The Ziu shall set forth by law those qualifications it deems requisite prior to the nomination of a Justice to the Uppermost Cort. Maybe I missed it, but is there any reason the Ziu couldn't establish a party affiliation by law? 3. The Ziu may limit by law those other offices in which a prospective Justice may sit, and may limit those rights a potential Justice may enjoy, upon accepting a nomination confirmation, which shall extend for the full duration of that Justice's tenure, including reconfirmation, unless the Ziu shall explicitly pass an Act removing such restraint when such removal applies equally to all sitting Justices. No limitation may be imposed ex post facto , but the Ziu may impose restraints for reconfirmation. It is weird to see a provision allowing the Ziu to limit the rights a justice may enjoy in the instance of their appointment. As far as I can tell, the literal language here would allow someone to be appointed by a hostile 2/3 with the proviso that they lose the right of habeas corpus, then prosecuted before they can resign. It's an outlandish scenario, but I'm not sure why we're giving the Ziu the power to strip away rights as a condition of service. I also see a ton of potential for abuse in a scenario where the Ziu wants to remove a troublesome and politically active justice. 4. Where a vacancy exists, the Prime Minister shall recommend to the Ziu a potential candidate, provided that such a confirmation may twice occur within the same Government. "May only," perhaps? 5. Upon a recommendation, the respective houses of the Ziu must, based on their own procedure, advise and consent the Prime Minister, which must be concluded with two-thirds approval from the Cosa and a majority of the Senate. The letter of this law would require that the procedure remain open until the nominee is approved. There is a ton of stuff like this, and it makes me a bit worried what I might be missing. Also, am I crazy, or wasn't there a different threshold for appointment in the last section? 8. In the event that a sitting Justice of the Uppermost Cort acts in an manner that offends basic notions of propriety or perpetuates the appearance of impropriety, both in his or her official capacity or in the public square, any member of the Ziu may move for an Notice of Reprimand, which shall set forth an individual charge, unless that charge arises out of a series of transactions or occurrences, and the punishment that shall be imposed upon adopting of that motion. The Ziu shall permit any recourse up to but not exceeding removal from office, but shall not impose criminal liability, which may be sought in a Cort of Law. No Notice of Reprimand shall be considered presumptive guilt for criminal liability by a Cort of Law. This seems really easy to abuse. Like... amazingly easy to abuse. 9. All punishment, including removal, shall require that the motion for reprimand to not extend more than one Clark, with the following Clark to contain a simple up-or-down vote on whether to adopt said motion, by two-thirds of the Cosa and a simple majority of the Senate. The Sovereign shall give his or her assent to the result. In the event the Sovereign affirmatively withholds assent, a second vote shall be had immediately thereafter, where, upon achieving the requisite result, the motion is deemed adopted. This is also very confusingly written. Could it perhaps be clarified?
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2019 15:07:57 GMT -6
So I don't think one PM wields an awesome amount of power.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Apr 23, 2019 15:35:05 GMT -6
S:reu Davinescu, I appreciate your thorough feedback. The typos you point out will be modified accordingly. Please allow me some time to respond to your voluminous commentary. I do want to address one comment, however. Specifically: 2. In all cases affecting the Kingdom of Talossa, the Uppermost Cort shall have original jurisdiction, and in all cases previously mentioned, the Uppermost Cort shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, when the Ziu has set forth inferior courts, with such exceptions and under such regulations for those matters concerning administrative law as the Ziu shall make, which may be limited to appellate jurisdiction as to matters of law.
3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury. This is very confusing. Does it have to be phrased so confusingly? I'm a native English speaker, professional English teacher, and lawyer, and it took me a bit to get it. It doesn't seem like a very difficult set of concepts, but maybe there is some technical reasoning that is beyond my ken. I mean, why can't we just say, "In all cases under Talossan law, the Cort pu Inalt shall have jurisdiction. The only exceptions shall be made by law if and when the Ziu creates an inferior cort, and in these cases the Cort pu Inalt shall have appellate jurisdiction." Then a reader only might need to google a couple of words to understand what's going on here. Sir, I would ask you to review Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, and let me know if you, as a native English speaker, professional English teacher, and lawyer (do you mean only in Talossa or are you admitted to practice law in a US jurisdiction; you needn't divulge which jurisdiction), and let me know if the nearly identical language is confusing. That said, the UC should maintain original jurisdiction with cases that directly affect the Kingdom of Talossa, but really it should act as an appellate court when inferior courts exist. Also, I am loath to allow the Ziu to remove the UC's jurisdiction at whim. I do appreciate you taking the time to offer feedback and look forward to engaging in further discussion on this amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 23, 2019 17:08:44 GMT -6
S:reu Davinescu, I appreciate your thorough feedback. The typos you point out will be modified accordingly. Please allow me some time to respond to your voluminous commentary. I do want to address one comment, however. Specifically: This is very confusing. Does it have to be phrased so confusingly? I'm a native English speaker, professional English teacher, and lawyer, and it took me a bit to get it. It doesn't seem like a very difficult set of concepts, but maybe there is some technical reasoning that is beyond my ken. I mean, why can't we just say, "In all cases under Talossan law, the Cort pu Inalt shall have jurisdiction. The only exceptions shall be made by law if and when the Ziu creates an inferior cort, and in these cases the Cort pu Inalt shall have appellate jurisdiction." Then a reader only might need to google a couple of words to understand what's going on here. Sir, I would ask you to review Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, and let me know if you, as a native English speaker, professional English teacher, and lawyer (do you mean only in Talossa or are you admitted to practice law in a US jurisdiction; you needn't divulge which jurisdiction), and let me know if the nearly identical language is confusing. I don't quite understand the question. Are you asking if the same language in another place is also confusing? Because of course the answer is yes. Probably the reason is because the United States Constitution was written a couple of centuries ago. While it is an awesome document a lot of ways, cribbing directly from it might lead to a lot of these sorts of problems. It might be better to write clearly and to the point, instead.
|
|