Gorundu for Justice - A New Face?

Gorundu

I finished my Chinese homework
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him
TNP Nation
Gorundu
Discord
an_dr_ew
It would be a shame to leave this special election uncontested when there are so many good potential choices, so I have decided to offer myself for consideration. The title of this thread speaks to the somewhat interesting situation I'm in running for this office. Often candidates for Justice are either fairly new citizens or rather old hands - I'm not really either. While I'm long past being considered a new face in the region, I would be a new face for the Court, ready to add a new voice to this institution that has played an interesting role in our history and has seen its fair share of ups and downs. Although I have never served as Justice or Temporary Hearing Officer before, I think my experience as Prosecutor, Speaker and in the Regional Assembly in general means I have a good deal of experience in TNP's legal sphere and by extension knowledge of our laws (both statutory and judge-made) and the Court's procedures.

The Court has been doing a good job lately, and I would like to try and help continue the streak. I have enjoyed following the Court's progress and ruling for On the Regulation of the Regonal Message Board, and was pleased by its logical flow and clarity in its conclusions. As for my own judicial philosophy, I suppose it can be best summed up as reaching sensible conclusions within the bounds of statute. To serve justice - it's the name of the job - is to make fair and reasonable decisions, taking into account context and precedent, and in a way that aligns with the community's interests and preserves the integrity of our political system. Precedent is important, but we should not be afraid to change with the times, so long as it is made clear that we are departing from precedent. In criminal cases, this is somewhat different, with past cases playing an important role in setting standards, especially for sentencing.

Lastly, with the Court being very timely over the past term (to an extent that has surprised many of us), I suppose I should promise that if elected, I will respond expeditiously to any matters that may arise before the Court and encourage fellow Justices to do the same if necessary. I hope you will see this as a promise backed by evidence, as I have been a reliable presence in the region for a while now and have served reliably in my past jobs.

Thank you for taking the time to read my platform, and I hope I can count on you for a vote in the election. As is right to do, I welcome any questions about my campaign.
 
What court rulings do you disagree with and why?

What court ruling do you see as best so far?
 
What are your opinions about the current requirements for standing in R4Rs?

From time to time, there has been discussions about the issue of standing, and some have been arguing that the requirements are too strict. Do you think the requirements for standing should be loosen?
 
What court rulings do you disagree with and why?

What court ruling do you see as best so far?
I should admit first of all that I have not read every ruling the court has ever issued, and out of everything I have read I don't recall anything too objectionable. Of course there was the somewhat farcical Madjack criminal case, but that's been litigated too many times now and I don't have anything new to add about it. The recently-overturned-but-long-been-practically-ignored ruling On the Constitutionality of Prohibiting Sedition is one that I would have disagreed with, but it's overturned so that's that.

Now if you'll indulge me I have a little tangent to make here. I did take the opportunity to do a little research on the infamous nesting doll R4Rs, and...for some reason I just can't find the original R4R that started it all? Perhaps has something to do with Raven being banned? Definitely something I will look into.

As for the best ruling, again the disclaimer on not having read everything applies, and I will add that determining which ruling is "best" is a wholly subjective criteria depending on what kind of writing the the person answering prefers and what issues they feel most strongly about. That said, I think the recent one On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board would be a good contender for its comprehensive consideration of issues, clarity and logic in reaching each conclusion, and not holding back on overturning obsolete precedent. I'll also give a shout-out to On the Freedom of Information Act and Off-forum Content, which is probably one of the Court's more consequential rulings in recent times and advanced transparency efforts, which from my ideological perspective is a good thing.
What are your opinions about the current requirements for standing in R4Rs?

From time to time, there has been discussions about the issue of standing, and some have been arguing that the requirements are too strict. Do you think the requirements for standing should be loosen?
I don't particularly see a need to loosen the standing requirements. Although the Attorney-General's universal standing was abolished with the position, the compelling regional interest criteria still allows the Court to review important issues where the applicant may not have personal standing. Like LD, I'd probably be more inclined to accept cases on this ground, but there would be a limit to my generosity. I will add that I don't really see justification for any particular position/s to be given universal standing, and none would be likely to make use of it since it wouldn't be part of their job like it was for the AG. And full universal standing, in my opinion, is out of the question with the potential for disruptive actions.
 
For the record, the original r4r that started the nesting doll r4r never actually led to a ruling - it was challenged in an r4r, and then that r4r’s ruling was challenged, and as a result of the ruling on that challenge, the previous r4r was redone. So all of the rulings are on the record. That thread was deleted, but it did not contain a ruling so the record is complete as far as that is concerned. I’m sure @Zyvetskistaahn can confirm, as he was on the Court at that time.
 
It is correct that the first r4r did not receive a substantive ruling. The second r4r was to the initial decision of Justice Scorch to accept the request (though myself and Bootsie would have accepted it also); the request was withdrawn before the second ruling in the second r4r.

EDIT: “the subsequent reviews were all to” to “the second r4r was to”. The third r4r was to the first ruling in the second r4r.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top