|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2012 19:44:17 GMT -6
I like it. But I would use the same act to name his replacement, in my opinion.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 19, 2012 20:31:46 GMT -6
Eddie, my recommendation for a current draft:
WHEREAS we have three inactive Justices on the bench of the Uppermost Cort and this has caused the Justice system to grind slower than the RUMP's turtle,
WHEREAS we would like three active Justices, and a concomitant speed more akin to the cheetah of the distant veldt,
THEREFORE be it enacted that Justice Quedeir Castighla is hereby removed from office, as per the Organic Law, Article XVI, Section 1.
FURTHERMORE, Baron Castighla is understood to be a Justice Emeritus in good standing, as per 43RZ15. The Ziu thanks Baron Castighla for his service, bring to mind his notable actions in the early days of the liberated Kingdom and note regret that this action needs be taken.
Noi urent q'estadra sa:
E. Grischun (MC-CSPP)
Owen Edwards (MC-CSPP)
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 20, 2012 2:11:22 GMT -6
Updated, with thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 20, 2012 2:55:43 GMT -6
I like it. But I would use the same act to name his replacement, in my opinion. We are writing a separate Bill to name replacements and will be Hoppered in due course. I was 50/50 on whether the replacements should be included in the removal but I've been convinced that we should deal with this in a two stroke action. ...and I would add that I take absolutely no pleasure what-so-ever in this. It truly is unfortunate for this to be happening. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2012 6:05:45 GMT -6
I oppose two stroke for a very simple reason:
What if some fool votes for the appointment and against the removal causing the appointment to pass and the removal to fail? Then your appointment won't take without a vacancy and you have to reclark and add another delay to the process.
But if you go two-stroke, I will support, I am just playing devil's advocate
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 20, 2012 10:59:23 GMT -6
I see your point. And a good point it is. I'd like to think that we are dealing in formality here and that won't happen ... ha, you have me slightly worried about that now!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2012 7:04:40 GMT -6
I see your point. And a good point it is. I'd like to think that we are dealing in formality here and that won't happen ... ha, you have me slightly worried about that now! Making people worry about remote possibilities is how I makes my livings. |
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 21, 2012 7:15:54 GMT -6
A unified nomination Bill could offer an order of preference for people to take up seats, and of course be placed in the Clark AFTER the removal Bills, so as to gain royal assent after them. An order of preference means that if, by some strange event, one Justice were not removed, the first two on the list of preference would be *NOMINATED.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2012 7:19:59 GMT -6
It will work either way, I'm sure. I'll vote for the removal as is.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Apr 21, 2012 11:15:38 GMT -6
It will work either way, I'm sure. I'll vote for the removal as is. As will I. |
|
