Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Jan 24, 2020 13:19:52 GMT -6
Mr. Lord President, I wish to note that the nominee has not responded and it is nearly the end of the 48-hour period. If there are no objections, I move to extend my allotted time by 48 hours, if not for my benefit then at least for the nominee's.
That said, I do wish also to ask more questions which I intended to ask after the first round...
Fourteenth: The King asked earlier whether it was proper that the Uppermost Cort heard a second case in the so-called Proclamation Crisis sage (see <http://talossa.proboards.com/thread/11174/petition-injunctive-relief-orglaw-amendment>), which itself partially overturned a previous decision (see <http://talossa.proboards.com/thread/10706/petition-declarative-relief-application-47rz28>). Now that you've had some more time to think, would you comment more on the legal rather than political issues around this? Moreover, do you believe that this violated the principle of stare decisis? Why or why not?
Fifteenth: What are your distinct and separate feelings on the colors of green, red, and pink?
Sixteenth: Do you speak Talossan in any capacity? Why or why not?
Seventeenth: Should courts of record in Talossa be required to make their proceedings available in Talossan, in addition to whichever language was actually used?
Eighteenth: Should more people generally be encouraged to learn Talsosan? Should they be required? Why or why not?
Nineteenth: Have you watched the movie Bladerunner 2049? If so, did you like it? If not, when will you watch it in the future?
Twentieth: Would you vote, either as a senator or as a general member of the electorate, to abolish the Senate? Why or why not?
Twenty-first: Do you play any video games in your freetime? Which?
Twenty-second: What are your feelings on the floating proposal that the Ziu be replaced with one chamber of fixed membership which would be elected by the mixed-member proportional method?
Twenty-third: What should be done so that the Ziu conduct "Live Cosas" more often?
Twenty-fourth: How do you feel about jam versus jelly?
Twenty-fifth: What is in your estimation the greatest form of self-actualization which an American lawyer may achieve professionally?
Twenty-sixth: Have you ever considered running for a seat in either house of the U.S. Congress?
Twenty-seventh: Which is heavier? One thousand pounds of feathers, or one thousand pounds of bricks?
Twenty-eighth: Have you answered enough of my questions yet?
Twenty-ninth: Which questions do you wish that I or other senators would have asked you by now?
Thirtieth: If you could eat an apple right now, or a pear, which would you rather?
At this time I yield the floor to the nominee in hopes that he answer all 30 questions, though in consideration that the nominee answered other questions more punctually I do also hope that the Senate allot me more time. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 24, 2020 19:31:21 GMT -6
S:reu Chair:
My apologies to you and the Committee, and my apologies to Senator del Val for not providing timely answers. Yesterday I sent messages to you and Senator del Val regarding work events that were occupying my time and that I would reply last night. However (and unfortunately), those obligations continued today.
Unfortunately, I have been unable to timely answer within the allotted 48 hours, which has prejudiced Senator del Val. I join his request to extend the time allotted to him. On account of the Senator's request for brevity, I hope to be able to carve out 30 minutes to respond to all questions tomorrow, but if not, I will post my answers on Sunday upon this Committee resuming.
Thank you,
V
|
|
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 Jan 25, 2020 4:02:30 GMT -6
I have no objections to Senator Marcianüs's suggestion.
We stand adjourned until 10 TST (16 UTC) tomorrow.
|
|
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 Jan 26, 2020 9:13:53 GMT -6
The Committee will resume. Senator Marcianüs has the floor for 24 hours, to respond to Senator del Val's questions and to make a closing statement.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 26, 2020 11:42:16 GMT -6
Senator del Val: Thank you for your patience.
Getting directly to your questions:
(1) Favorite flavor=vanilla; iced cream= soft serve
(2) Winning some dispositive motions, an appeal, and closing about five other matters with highly favorable results in a two week span.
(3) The role of the courts in merged, common-law systems is to effect justice. The law comes from several sources: constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and the common law. Equity is the inherent power of the court to ensure that strict application of the law does not result in a severe injustice. However, equity becomes law per se when it becomes common enough to be standardized. In any event, law + equity = justice.
(4) Courts enjoy broad discretion within the confines of the law to effectuate justice. A judge may absolutely go too far when they render a decision that, essentially, obviates something like a statute. In many instances, the judge is acting in an outcome driven manner and ignoring why the law exists. The judge has become an advocate for one position instead of the neutral arbiter. As I mentioned above, equity comes in when there is a severe injustice, not just because there might be some injustice. So when a judge completely relies on “equity” when there is no real cause for it, or without a sound explanation as to what injustice the party has faced, they abuse their discretion. A certain high profile case is a clear example of this. The court, unequivocally and undeniably, abused its discretion in testing the legal sufficiency of the charging documents.
(5) See my answer to no. 4. But generally, when the court’s decision is patently unreasonable, erroneous, capricious, or arbitrary. The Law and facts do not support the conclusion. When comparable cases have resulted in another result that is diametrically opposite and irreconcilable with the court’s decision in the instant matter without any dispositive distinguishing circumstance.
(6) None directly. Talossa should not get in the business of sanctioning judges based on decisions. Generally, appellate courts serve to remedy these mistakes. Judges are humans and make mistakes. I am of the mind that sanctions or censure would undermine the independence of the judiciary and call into question whether it should be followed. Such would eat away at the Rule of Law. I fear that partisan politics may begin to play significant roles in judicial opinions. People tend to think exceptions are the rule and do not care much for nuance. But I do think that judges should, in some regards, be held accountable. Balancing these concerns, I think terms with renewal procedure, as proposed in the recent judiciary amendment, gives Talossa a way to get rid of an errant judge without calling the entire judiciary into question.
(7) See no. 6.
(8) Passing of my aunt. I kept focus on becoming who I am today and continuing to become the person I think would make her proud.
(9) No.
(10) I have four cats: Kaiserin (16 years old); Neikka (12 years old); Leon (4 years old); and Damien Thorn (3 years old). I prefer cats over dogs, but I love dogs. I do not care much for the entire “which one is better” arguments.
(11) Diagonally. I eat outside to inside so the best (the core) is enjoyed last and a sandwich may start out only tasting mediocre at first but become the best sandwich by the end.
(12) Yes. A country is defined by its own characteristics. I’m more of a derivativist with a penchant for percularism. I do not see the two as mutually exclusive but creating a spectrum for nuanced approaches.
(13) It certainly does than it did circa 2013. On the whole, I do find it more satisfactory, but there are times when it is more negative and I dread checking Witt.
Time spent on answers nos. 1-13: 27 minutes.
(14) I’m unsure exactly where the UC overturned prior decision. In the first matter, the issue was whether the King has the authority to not proclaim an amendment. The UC focused on the word “may” and found that its permissive use granted the King authority to veto an Organic Amendment. The second case concerned the temporal aspect of “may.” Does the King have to affirmatively veto an amendment? The UC answered the inquiry by holding that “may” requires affirmative action within the appropriate temporal window for that action. Basically, all amendments are presumed proclaimed unless the King exercises his discretion in the Organic window o affirmatively withhold proclamation. This is logical—let’s balance the inverse result: all amendments require the King’s affirmative proclamation. I will use absolute extremes so my slip down this slope gets me to the final bottom. There is an amendment that EVERYONE supports. No a single person is opposed. It receives absolute unanimous support in the Ziu, the King even stated before the Ziu voted that he supported. The King even publicly voted it during referendum. But the Organic Law requires proclamation of an amendment during that temporal window. So the King voted and then life happened and he is unable to proclaim within that window. Had the Uppermost Cort gone the other way, it would mean that the referendum that has absolute, unanimous support is vetoed. That is clearly the exact opposite of everything I just said but the process has to be repeated, so the entire country is harmed by one person’s failure, however justified, and must spend valuable time and resources to remedy that oversight. Now, let’s change one fact—the King is the only person who is opposed to the amendment; everyone else in Talossa supports the amendment. So everything else being the same, the UC’s holding means that his failure, albeit justified, permits the amendment to take effect. The only injured party is the King in that scenario, which resulted from his own fault. Now, if the King had timely vetoed the amendment, you could say that Talossa is harmed, but that harm is Organically supported and within the King’s discretion. So when we balance the foregoing equities, the UC’s decisions is the most sound. Both decisions are reconciled with the Organic Law and each other, so, perhaps I am missing something and need to reread the decisions together again, but I do not really see where the Uppermost Cort went the other way.
To the second part of your question, which is really the first, there are instances in other jurisdictions where a court may vacate its prior order and “go the other way.” In New York, that is on a motion to renew/reargue. It, in no way, impacts stare decisis because the prior order is a nullity, and the court explains what fact or law it misapprehended or how a new fact changes the disposition of the issue. It’s essentially, without any sarcasm, “well that fact changes everything!” In US federal court, this may be seen as a Rule 60 motion for relief from an order. But in any event, this is not what happened here. These are different cases that have been portrayed as an instance where the Uppermost Cort went the other way on the same issue. But I submit that this is not what happened—in the first instance, the Uppermost Cort was presented with the question: can the King veto an amendment? The Uppermost Cort answered in the affirmative. In the next instance, the issues begged the question: Do we presume an amendment proclaimed when passed by the Legislature and ratified through a referendum or do we presume an amendment not proclaimed (i.e. vetoed) until the King affirmatively does so? The Uppermost Cort adopted the former and acknowledged a rebuttable presumption. And that rebuttal comes in the form of the King affirmatively acting within the allotted temporal window. The result is, in fact, quite simple and fair and not really political per se. What would transform it into a political question would be if the cort decided to carve out exceptions or identify some play in the joints. Avoiding that, in what I submit was/is the best way for the Cort to decide because its balance of equities provided the most equitable result (the least amount of people harmed by the negative (i.e. implicit) presumption), was to avoid creating some form of nuanced grey areas that places corts in the center of what would manifest as an epitomized political question: under what circumstances does the negative presumption of “may” require an affirmative act?
(15) Ugh, I have a strong dislike for the color green; but for some reason I love my new olive suit. Red I like; pink goes fantastically with brown. If you’re wondering, orange is my favorite color.
(16) No. It doesn’t pique my interest. Incidentally, neither does Spanish. But it doesn’t invalidate it as a language. It also doesn’t mean that I do not have to deal with Spanish in my professional life; after all, I’m an attorney in New York City!
(17) I favor New York’s approach, which favors the public’s right to know. But courts should control video or audio recordings, while transcripts and filings publicly accessible. That said, some redactions (e.g. confidential or personal information) is appropriate, and there are mechanisms to achieve that. Filings under seal or proceeding in camara should really be the extreme exception. I am not a fan of the approach by the U.S. federal courts that seems to provide less public access. That’s said, the latter may be appropriate for Talossa to some degree given our strong emphasis on privacy rights. I’m not entirely sure which one I think works best for Talossa, and my mind is not in any way made up on the issue or falling significantly on one side over the other. But if I had to decide today, I’d try to find a middle ground.
(18) Sure. Just as more New Yorkers should be encouraged to learn Spanish. But nobody should be required to learn Talossan. The de facto lingua franca of Talossa is English. That comes with its fair share of problems (e.g. not all Talossans understand the idiosyncrasies or weight of certain words in English). But those problems would be amplified if we require a language that maybe only a handful of people (and perhaps not even current Talossans) to learn and use officially. Also, I imagine that many people would be turned off. Talossa is small and needs to grow. If we impose a requirement that people learn Talossa to participate, we will create an avoidable brain drain.
(19) I have not. I cannot provide a date because I do not know.
(20) I don’t know. I have stated in the public record before that I do not favor abolishing the Senate, but maybe a diminished role—something akin to the House of Lords (elected) in the UK. That is, delay but not prevent. I don’t know. I’m still very much unsure of the issue. The Cosa does have a tendency of having large majorities in favor of a Government. And because public votes generally correspond with those in the Cosa, I’m unsure that we would have an adequate check on mob rule.
(21) Yes. Europa Universalis; Stellaris; Civilization; etc. I enjoy grand strategies.
(22) See No. 20.
(23) I don’t know. Not sure how this impacts the hearing though.
(24) Jelly.
(25) Ask me again if or when I have that moment. I think I’m still in the self-delusional phase. At work, I occasionally get the question, “Do you feel you’re getting it?” Not in the sense of the issue, but actually being an attorney in my area of law. DO I feel I’m getting what it take so to practice this type of law. Some older attorneys have said they didn’t feel that they got it until 10 or 20 years of practice. I hate this question—I think “getting it” is something that is continuous, and much like “can something be perfect” the state of “getting it” means that you probably don’t get it. New things come up, law changes, etc. So you’re constantly trying to “get it.” To your question, I don’t know what form of self-actualization a lawyer practicing in the US may achieve professionally.
(26) Nope.
(27) Neither weigh heavier than one thousand pounds of self-doubt. But they weigh the same. (For our metric listeners: one-thousand kilograms of feathers weigh the same as one thousand kilograms of bricks.)
(28) Yes.
(29) See No. 28.
(30) An apple.
Answer time for nos. 14-30: 42 minutes.
|
|
Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Jan 26, 2020 12:03:42 GMT -6
My esteemed friend, I think that there may have been a misreading of question #17. To put it a different way: should court proceedings be translated by SIGN, the Clerk, or another entity into Talossan after the final judgement is rendered? And more to the point, should this effort be required or merely optional? If optional, should the translations be then considered official or unofficial?
Also, with regard to #23, I should clarify that I enjoy the idea that more proceedings of Talossa be held if not in person then by teleconference, i.e. with real audio and/or video contact. To that end, "Living Cosas" notwithstanding, would you support a general effort to make court proceedings teleconferenced? Nevermind the particulars; I mean it generally. Perhaps hearings could be done under an hour, and then the judgement done by video? Just as one hypothetical example.
I do have one final question, #31, assuming that I do not have follow-up questions to the two above: should these sorta of nominations hearings be conducted as a matter of policy for the future, whether by statute or merely Standing Rules?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 26, 2020 12:17:44 GMT -6
Quick addendum to No. 14:
The dissent in Petition for Declarative Relief – Application of 47RZ28 hits the nail on the head. That said, the dissent’s reasoning is not necessarily at odds with the majority opinion. In any event, what constitutes a proclamation within the meaning of the Organic law is what was actually at issue. The majority was of the mind that by allowing the King to “proclaim” an amendment gave rise to an implicit ability to “veto” an amendment. The dissent means to require an “affirmative act of not proclaiming” to exercise that veto. The majority in Petition for Injunctive Relief – re: OrgLaw Amendment (UC) adopts the dissent’s approach while tracking with the prior conclusion—it is settled that the King may veto an organic amendment, but that veto must be an affirmative act. In the prior instance, the King’s affirmative act to withhold proclamation was the veto; in the second instance, “the existence or absence of an explicit proclamation does not prevent its application and enforceability.” In other words, the King may withhold proclamation, but that cannot be implied. The King’s affirmative act rebuts presumed proclamation.
The Cort did not hurt stare decisis because it expanded and clarified its prior holding. The first instance acknowledged the Organic right of the King to veto amendments; the second instances explained the outer limits of the right. It did not unsettled law, but fortified it further.
As an aside--It may be beneficial for Talossan Corts to normalize case captions. This should be the Cort's prerogative, for those wondering. (Perhaps there is a guide somewhere to which I am ignorant.)
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 26, 2020 12:33:13 GMT -6
Follow-up questions and clarifications:
No. 17 – I see no reason why cort proceedings should not be translated. Who should translate them I do not know. There is an obvious issue of person power. If the Government wants to encourage use, it should have in place ways for proceedings to be translated. It may be too much for the Cort or its staff to do it, but it could outsource it to another State organ or private entity. Until we have more speakers who can verify accurate translations, I think we should hold off on “official” effect of those matters translated.
No. 23 – If the parties and judges in an action are open to teleconferencing, I, personally, would relish holding some hearings that way. If for no other reason than a one hour teleconference may serve to speed things along. Decisions should *always* be reduced to writing. A bench decision requires an official transcript for appeals.
No. 31. – I applaud the Chair’s meticulous planning of this hearing. The rules were set beforehand, and everyone has done a stellar job at trying, to the best of their ability, to respect the rules and the process. But this is new and it could be refined. To circle back to supplemental No. 23, imagine how much faster this could have gone if you and I had done it by teleconference. But that in and of itself requires some planning on our end, and then people have to watch/listen. But in any event, I think these should become standard practice. The only way to truly require them is to make an Organic Amendment, which I presently do not support (non-Talossan life time is a thing). But let’s play this out for a moment. The Senate and the Cosa can have standing rules, but it cannot bind itself prospectively absent an Organic Amendment. If it did, then we run the risk of failure to adhere to an explicit requirement rendering a nominee’s otherwise legitimate appointment null and void. On the other hand, if only standing rules, and the Senate diverges, who would determine to what extent that impacts the Organic requirements? It’s necessarily a political question that the Cort should never touch. I would say that it would not impact the nominee because it is not Organically required. But I think convention should be established, and I hope this hearing serves as the predicate, for all nominees to undergo a hearing. Finally, there is nothing stopping the Cosa from doing something similar, but I am mindful that a nominee may not want to submit, and understandably so, to the Cosa and Senate hosting separate hearings. I would propose following the outline in this hearing—convention favors the Senate conducting a hearing with a liberal approach to “guests” asking questions. I do think time for questions should refined, but I am unsure what can be done differently.
|
|
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 Jan 26, 2020 13:50:41 GMT -6
This concludes the interview process. The Chair is now open to receiving motions to adjourn and report, which will be selected by me to be debated immediately after the statement.
Senator Marcianüs still has the floor for his closing statement.
|
|
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 Jan 26, 2020 16:12:03 GMT -6
Order. Pursuant to Rule 17b, I have received and accepted an external contribution from S:r Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Friday the 24th. His statement is put on the record and follows verbatim:
|
|
Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Jan 26, 2020 20:12:16 GMT -6
I wish to wait for the closing statement of the nominee, but do make known my intent and desire to move for the adjournment of this committee so that a report may be made available to the whole Senate.
Please consider this motion active or "in action", so to speak, if the nominee makes (or does not make) such closing statement within 20 hours.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 27, 2020 14:11:48 GMT -6
|
|
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 Jan 27, 2020 14:49:04 GMT -6
Thank you, Senator Marcianüs.
Two motions for adjournment have been presented or announced without a report attached, in which case I would like to remind the Committee that we would adjourn with the default report in neutral terms set out in Rule 24: "The Committee of the Whole House has considered the nomination of S:reu Viteu Marcianüs to be Justice of the Uppermost Court".
It is up to Committee members to decide whether they would like to offer a non-neutral report that explicitly endorses the nominee. I have left this option available, and mentioned it repeatedly over the course of the hearing, purely because the Prime Minister said, on announcing the nomination, the following:
Offering a non-neutral report gives the Senate an opportunity to signal the Government its sense regarding the vetting process.
I will wait a bit for members to present additional or alternative motions, and then I will select one of them and call the vote open.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 27, 2020 15:24:05 GMT -6
Mx. Chair:
Please allow the following to amend my motion:
In accord with Rule 23 of the Set Rules for the Public Hearing of Viteu Marcianüs ("Set Rules"), I hereby move for an immediate adjournment of this Committee, and upon said adjournment, to adopt and publish the following report to the Senate, "The Committee of the Whole House has considered the nomination of S:reu Viteu Marcianüs to the position of Justice of the Uppermost Cort of Talossa, and have considered such, recommend S:reu Marcianüs for the position of Justice of the Uppermost Cort of Talossa."
Thank you,
V
|
|
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 Jan 27, 2020 15:35:07 GMT -6
The question is that the Committee do now adjourn and report to the Senate with the following: "The Committee of the Whole House has considered the nomination of S:reu Viteu Marcianüs to the position of Justice of the Uppermost Cort of Talossa, and have considered such, recommend S:reu Marcianüs for the position of Justice of the Uppermost Cort of Talossa." Those in favour, please vote Për, those against, Contrâ, in the usual way. Sevastáin Pinátsch Amada Merþedes Açafat del Val Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. Ian Plätschisch Viteu MarcianüsThe vote is open for three days (until this time of January 30) and the floor is also open for remarks and debate while votes are being cast. Rule 17b written contributions will also continue to be entertained while the vote is open.
|
|