request for review: are justices Government Officials?

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
Sirs,

I request a legal review of this question: Are Jusices considered officials of the government?

in our Legal code there seems to be a general assumption that they are not. Several times distinction is made between the two. for example:

12. When seeking an indictment to eject or ban, or expel from the RA due to oath violation, pending a trial, the Government must inform all the Justices.

17. Forum administrators will inform the Government and Court of Proxying they observe.

etc.

On the other hand, customarily we require justices to swear the oath required of Government officials.

.
.
.

Where this issue becomes interesting is that Astarial has been blocked from running in the current election as a justice because she is not a member of the Regional Assembly. However, our legal code (strangely) does not require a Justice specifically to be a member of the Regional Assembly.

the only mention of RA membership is here:

1. All government officials must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly. Candidates in any election must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly for the fifteen days before the opening of nominations."

However, that specifically says "government officials.

IF Justices are not government officials there is no RA membership requirement, and the blocking of Astarial's candidacy is illegal.

I would welcome a ruling.

PD EDIT: Added ruling date to subtitle.
 
Due to the ongoing elections it is the belief of the Court that an agreement will not be reached on this matter prior to the end of the therm. Therefore we will not be discussing this review and will allow the next Court to come to a decision on this matter.
 
Hileville:
Due to the ongoing elections it is the belief of the Court that an agreement will not be reached on this matter prior to the end of the therm. Therefore we will not be discussing this review and will allow the next Court to come to a decision on this matter.
Click to expand...
There WAS a certain urgency to this, since the interpretation of this matter by the Speaker had prevented Astarial from standing in the current justice elections. It is disappointing how the judiciary seems to grind to a halt towards the end of its term, even when legal opinion is asked for that is vital.

But so be it.
 
flemingovia:
Hileville:
Due to the ongoing elections it is the belief of the Court that an agreement will not be reached on this matter prior to the end of the therm. Therefore we will not be discussing this review and will allow the next Court to come to a decision on this matter.
Click to expand...
There WAS a certain urgency to this, since the interpretation of this matter by the Speaker had prevented Astarial from standing in the current justice elections. It is disappointing how the judiciary seems to grind to a halt towards the end of its term, even when legal opinion is asked for that is vital.

But so be it.
Click to expand...
For the record, I am the commissioner of the special election for delegate, and have nothing to do with the administration of the judicial elections.
 
Apologies, I honestly forgot about this review.

There will now be a 48 hour period for the submission of briefs.
 
The Judiciary is a branch of the Government. The examples do not actually contradict this.
12. When seeking an indictment to eject or ban, or expel from the RA due to oath violation, pending a trial, the Government must inform all the Justices.
Click to expand...
^The Justices are in the Government, in this case they are being informed by a person such as the Delegate who is acting in an executive capacity in the Government. The fact the Justices are part of the Government doesn't mean they can't be informed by someone acting for the Government.

17. Forum administrators will inform the Government and Court of Proxying they observe.
Click to expand...
^The Government includes the Court. The Government can be informed by informing somebody such as the Delegate who acts on behalf of the Government, and the Court can be informed by informing either the Chief Justice or all of the Justices, who act on behalf of the Court. This doesn't mean that the Court is not still part of the Government.

They are distinct insofar as the set of government officials contains the set of judicial officers.
 
The court has been so dilatory on this that I had pretty much forgotten it too.

My submission is pretty much in the original query. But since what prompted it was an urgent query relating to an election that is now long past, there is little point in continuing.

Chalk it up to a crap legal system.
 
Should the Court choose to review this issue, my only comment would be that the Court must adhere to the Constitution in all things, and the Constitution establishes rather clearly that:
1. The Court will try all criminal and civil cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. Petitioner has made no claim that he is an affected party, so I'm not entirely sure the Court can even hear this case, or should.
 
I've been made aware. This is why I do not do these things on auto-pilot on my phone.


The Court will not be reviewing this matter unless an affected party submits a request.
 
Gaspo:
Should the Court choose to review this issue, my only comment would be that the Court must adhere to the Constitution in all things, and the Constitution establishes rather clearly that:
1. The Court will try all criminal and civil cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. Petitioner has made no claim that he is an affected party, so I'm not entirely sure the Court can even hear this case, or should.
Click to expand...
I am affected in that a candidate for the election was denied the opportunity to run for office because she was not a member of the regional assembly. Therefore I was denied the opportunity to vote for her - which I surely would have done.
 
As the individual named in the original filing and someone very much affected by this issue, I would like to add my name to the request for review.
 
Thank you, Astarial.

I apologise for the confusion: due to the confusion and messiness with this case, and something which was my personal screwup, I will extend the briefing period for a further 24 hours only, at which point the Court will consider this review.
 
Thank you for the court's undertaking to consider this review. I think i have nothing to add to the details contained in my posts in this thread.
 
Following the closure of submissions, the court has been considering this for nine days now. Is it proving excessively complex?
 
No, we just all have lives and can't be on every single day, and even if we can be on every day, we don't always have the time to reference and closely inspect the laws currently in existence.

Frankly, if you think Courts, whether on this or in real life, can open and close a case within a fortnight, you really are wishful thinking.

We'll come to a decision soon and when we do, it'll be posted. Have some goddamn patience.
 
Sanctaria:
No, we just all have lives and can't be on every single day, and even if we can be on every day, we don't always have the time to reference and closely inspect the laws currently in existence.

Frankly, if you think Courts, whether on this or in real life, can open and close a case within a fortnight, you really are wishful thinking.

We'll come to a decision soon and when we do, it'll be posted. Have some goddamn patience.
Click to expand...
I thank the court official for his professional, courteous and gentlemanly response.

I will resume my wait.
 
It is fortunate that the honourable member of the court gave such a gentlemanly and courteous response. Otherwise one might take the view that asking for a time frame or some expectation that work be done in a timely manner was inappropriate- and that there is nothing one could do to receive the respectful reply of the honourable justice.
 
To McM & Flem -

The court is definitely deliberating on this and the other matters before us. The reason for not issuing an opinion is due, as Sanctaria stated, because we do have some Real Life constrainsts that have impacted at least two of the justices and we also want to take care to reference and come to a decision that reflects the correct interpretation of our laws.

In other words, reviews take time and we are taking care to come to a reasoned decision on all matters before us. This means that it may take time and we may not be able to provide you with a timeframe for when a decision will be rendered. But, please do not take our silence within the review threads as inaction or negligence.

We take these matters seriously and ask for the populace to understand that decisions made by this court will done so reasonably and without haste as much as is possible.
 
punk d:
To McM & Flem -

The court is definitely deliberating on this and the other matters before us. The reason for not issuing an opinion is due, as Sanctaria stated, because we do have some Real Life constrainsts that have impacted at least two of the justices and we also want to take care to reference and come to a decision that reflects the correct interpretation of our laws.

In other words, reviews take time and we are taking care to come to a reasoned decision on all matters before us. This means that it may take time and we may not be able to provide you with a timeframe for when a decision will be rendered. But, please do not take our silence within the review threads as inaction or negligence.

We take these matters seriously and ask for the populace to understand that decisions made by this court will done so reasonably and without haste as much as is possible.
Click to expand...
That's not a problem at all. Now that the election cycle is over the urgency was over. I thought my inquiry was quite courteous and was unsure why it merited such a churlish reply.
 
Hopefully within the next week. We've come to a preliminary decision, but we want to reflect some more on the existing law just to ensure we've not left anything out/come to the wrong decision.

Drafting the opinion may take a few days depending on timezones/work schedules etc, but I don't anticipate this taking any longer than a week, especially with the weekend coming up.
 
Abbey has just left on a LoA, but there is a draft ruling ready to go out as soon as she gets back and can either agree or dissent.
 
Sanctaria:
Abbey has just left on a LoA, but there is a draft ruling ready to go out as soon as she gets back and can either agree or dissent.
Click to expand...
I believe in her LoA thread she said:

I've made appropriate arrangements in the meantime - the other two justices are free to deal with the 2 pending reviews as they see fit, and I will see you all in 5 days time when I'm out from underneath this pile of work.
Click to expand...

So there really is no need to wait for her return.
 
Honestly - this past week has been difficult with the Boston bombing. I'm not going to lie as I was as focused here as I could be, but not as much as I would have liked. With things settled down I know I can focus a little more on this over the weekend.

We do have a draft as Sanc stated, but still a lot of editing to be done.
 
While I fully recognize it's been an awful week, Punk, it's week six of this review. Six. Seriously, guys?
 
I'm not saying this is the case, but it could be we need Abbey to break a tie vote.

We don't, so we'll get this out ASAP, but just because we're free to deal with the other two doesn't mean we can't if we can't come to a majority vote.
 
A quick update not inspired by a request for update.

I would be surprised if by the end of Monday we have not ruled on this. Thank you, for your continued patience.
 
It's not a good time for us RL-wise. Abbey has to study, I've taken a new job *and* been diagnosed with a long-term illness, and I think punk has some personal stuff going on too.

I am really sorry that this is taking so long, but I can't be on here for long periods every day to hammer these things. I'm managing about 10/15 minutes a day at the moment, and as anyone on IRC will tell you, I haven't even been there for a while.

I can tell you that the opinion has been assigned to someone to finalise, and once done, it will be posted.
 
Sanctaria:
It's not a good time for us RL-wise. Abbey has to study, I've taken a new job *and* been diagnosed with a long-term illness, and I think punk has some personal stuff going on too.

I am really sorry that this is taking so long, but I can't be on here for long periods every day to hammer these things. I'm managing about 10/15 minutes a day at the moment, and as anyone on IRC will tell you, I haven't even been there for a while.

I can tell you that the opinion has been assigned to someone to finalise, and once done, it will be posted.
Click to expand...
OOC: Listen, I can understand RL>NS more than anyone but this was brought to the justices on March 11th. I understand you're doing your best but...March 11th. I'm not trying to be a dick about this, just pointing out the obvious.
 
I have given up on this.

I withdraw my request for a ruling.

I would urge the justices to consider whether they have the time to devote to this office.
 
Well, I do believe that we are pretty close to a final warning. I have a final draft that needs review but we're close.

If you'd like to continue with the withdrawal of the request, that's fine.
 
punk d:
Well, I do believe that we are pretty close to a final warning. I have a final draft that needs review but we're close.

If you'd like to continue with the withdrawal of the request, that's fine.
Click to expand...
A final warning? Who of? Me?

Issue a review of this, or not, as you choose. I have given up on this.
 
Whoa, sorry flem. "warning" was not the intended word. I meant "draft".

I'd love to say why I put it in there, but it involves a RL work situation that I was dealing with while writing this.

Seems like you'd still like a review done on this, so we'll get it out.

Unfortunately, probably will drag into mid-week. I know, I know.
 
punk d:
Seems like you'd still like a review done on this, so we'll get it out.
Click to expand...
You read too much into my words, and are incorrect.

I have given up on this matter, and pretty much given up on the competency of the court. If you wish to continue with it, go ahead. Or not.
 
Well, I am sorry you have given up, my friend.

In that case, I'll consider this matter closed then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top