Nomination of an Uppermost Cort Justice

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Estimadâs és estimäts Membreux del Ziu!

Whereas since the 23rd of September 2018/XXXIX, with the impeachment of B. Ardprestéir, the 5th seat on the Cort pü Înalt has been vacant;
and whereas the Organic Law XVI.4 states:

In the event of a vacancy in the Cort pü Inalt, any member of the Ziu may nominate a replacement. The nominee shall be approved by a two-thirds vote in the Cosâ and a majority vote in the Senäts in favour of his appointment.

and whereas cxhn. Viteu Marcianüs is a legal professional outside Talossa and one of the finest legal minds within Talossa;

as a Member of the Cosâ I am very happy to nominate Viteu Marcianüs to the Uppermost Cort of Talossa.

Please note that this is not a formal "bill to be Clarked" as of yet. I believe that the Mençéi, Lüc da Schir, has discussed s:reu Marcianüs' impending nomination with him and agreed a vetting process before the Senäts or a committee thereof. Therefore, I will not be presenting this for a vote until such vetting has been done with a positive outcome in favour of the nominee.

Questions? Comments?

[Eðo Grischun]

I really like that Lüc da Schir is organising a formal vetting process for the candidate. As far as I can remember this has never been done before. In the past, a name was put forward and then a vote just took place with nothing in between. I hope this sets a precedent and a new trend for all future candidates for appointed offices. As a total fanboy for parliamentary process, I applaud and welcome this move.

I would also like to say to the Senate that I am available to give evidence and testimony at any hearings that take place during this process. I have a long history of working alongside the nominee in various capacities, a history of hostility and heated arguments with the nominee and I have completed a journey where I once hated the nominees' guts to the point where I, today, highly respect and like him. I am available to answer any questions and to give honest testimony, both, for and against the nominee.

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

The impeachment was not given effect to, and prior to the royal assent the said Judge in question had resigned.

Please correct the anomaly in the version as portrayed hereinabove.

[Eðo Grischun]

Dec 30, 2019 5:50:58 GMT -6 Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. said:

The impeachment was not given effect to, and prior to the royal assent the said Judge in question had resigned.

Please correct the anomaly in the version as portrayed hereinabove.

The Ziu passed that impeachment bill. You were, in fact, impeached. You removed yourself from office before your impeachment led to a forcible removal. Sorry, but the charges stuck.

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

Dec 30, 2019 6:57:32 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Dec 30, 2019 5:50:58 GMT -6 Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. said:

The impeachment was not given effect to, and prior to the royal assent the said Judge in question had resigned.

Please correct the anomaly in the version as portrayed hereinabove.

The Ziu passed that impeachment bill. You were, in fact, impeached. You removed yourself from office before your impeachment led to a forcible removal. Sorry, but the charges stuck.

It was a Bill, which was to be effective after the assent of the King. You may say that since the King did not veto the passed Impeachment Bill, nor did he sign the Act into operation, it automatically passed into law due to efflux of time. However in this unique case since the person no longer sat on the Bench, he cannot be said to have been removed by impeachment.

[Eðo Grischun]

Dec 30, 2019 12:02:07 GMT -6 Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. said:

Dec 30, 2019 6:57:32 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

The Ziu passed that impeachment bill. You were, in fact, impeached. You removed yourself from office before your impeachment led to a forcible removal. Sorry, but the charges stuck.

It was a Bill, which was to be effective after the assent of the King. You may say that since the King did not veto the passed Impeachment Bill, nor did he sign the Act into operation, it automatically passed into law due to efflux of time. However in this unique case since the person no longer sat on the Bench, he cannot be said to have been removed by impeachment.

Yes, you were not removed from office by impeachment. You removed yourself. But, the impeachment still happened. Impeachment and removal are two different things. Granted, the bill in question was doing those two things simultaneously. By resigning you prevented the removal from office part, but the charge of impeachment still happened.

[Lüc da Schir]

Good day everyone. I invite you to the introductory thread on the hearing to get up to speed on how this will play out. Senators have already been contacted with clarifications and suggestions.

For non-Senators - this includes MCs and any other Talossan who is not on the Ziu - you can also play a part in the hearing should you want to.

- You can submit a written statement (a bit like an amicus brief I guess), that will be put on the record as soon as practical (contact me for this);

- Most importantly, you can contact me or any other Senator to be recognised as a guest counsel and be able to ask questions, make statements and present evidence during part of the time allotted to your host-Senator.

I would strongly recommend that certain people at least submit statements, or ideally do ask to be included as guests:

- People whose parties are not represented in the Senate;

- The Government, to make an official case for the nomination;

- People with legal background;

- People who have worked with the nominee or know him well.

Anyone else is also encouraged to make their opinion heard.

The process will begin this weekend.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jan 2, 2020 4:54:15 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

- The Government, to make an official case for the nomination;

The Government would like the opportunity to put questions to the candidate.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Jan 2, 2020 16:49:58 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Jan 2, 2020 4:54:15 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

- The Government, to make an official case for the nomination;

The Government would like the opportunity to put questions to the candidate.

As would the Opposition.

[Lüc da Schir]

I would suggest both of you contact a Senator, either to be recognised as a guest counsel* (so) or to have him/her ask questions on your behalf.

Perhaps the Government can ask one of the FreeDem+AMP senators to yield a day to a guest, or outright have a senator represent the government and ask questions on their behalf (for example the Distain, who is the only senator to sit in the Cabinet).

As per the Opposition, maybe they can cut a deal with the Government to have one of the Government senators yield a day, or contact one of the independents. If nothing else is found, I am willing to lend one of my two days to the NPW.

*: Just to be clear, the way this works is that the Senator announces the guest counsel, yields to him some or all of his time (up to the entire two days) and during that time the guest can ask questions and make statements as if they were a Senator.