- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Attempted_Socialism
- Discord
- Kim Philby#9330
It has been an unspoken tradition that Justices who are functionally absent have been labelled as ‘abstaining’ on R4Rs. That has not been necessary while I have been on the Court, but one needs only to go back in the Rulings Registry to see that absence without temporary replacement has been a common phenomenon.
Following on the suggestion to have a public list of people of Temporary Hearing Officers, the Court intends to write voluntary recusal into the Court procedures for cases where the Justice can’t participate in a case due to time constraints. In such a case, the Justice would declare their absence and the Court would appoint a Temporary Hearing Officer to take the Justice’s seat on the particular case. While ideally the elected Justices are the ones to decide cases, as they have received the citizen’s trust, the system of being guaranteed three sets of eyes on a case is more important.
The Court does not expect this to be an oft-needed solution to absence, but the Court must recognise that for instance a crisis in a Justice’s personal life can prevent the Justice from having time in a short period without impairing their general ability to adjudicate cases.
We seek public feedback to this proposal, and we will do so for future proposals to come in this term, regardless of whether those proposals can be implemented by the Court alone or requires new legislation. This is done to arrive at the best decision, and also to maintain the Court's impartiality and legitimacy. If we propose something that could jeopardise either, we wish to know sooner rather than later.
Following on the suggestion to have a public list of people of Temporary Hearing Officers, the Court intends to write voluntary recusal into the Court procedures for cases where the Justice can’t participate in a case due to time constraints. In such a case, the Justice would declare their absence and the Court would appoint a Temporary Hearing Officer to take the Justice’s seat on the particular case. While ideally the elected Justices are the ones to decide cases, as they have received the citizen’s trust, the system of being guaranteed three sets of eyes on a case is more important.
The Court does not expect this to be an oft-needed solution to absence, but the Court must recognise that for instance a crisis in a Justice’s personal life can prevent the Justice from having time in a short period without impairing their general ability to adjudicate cases.
We seek public feedback to this proposal, and we will do so for future proposals to come in this term, regardless of whether those proposals can be implemented by the Court alone or requires new legislation. This is done to arrive at the best decision, and also to maintain the Court's impartiality and legitimacy. If we propose something that could jeopardise either, we wish to know sooner rather than later.
