Formal Discussion

wizardofoz01

wizardofoz01

TNPer
This from Hersfold, regarding the Article V:

An Amendment to the Constitution, Article V, Section 2, Clauses B & C:

In order to stagger the terms of the Chief and Associate Justices, the clauses named above shall be amended to the following:

B - The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices shall each serve a term of six months. The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices shall be Members of the Regional Assembly who shall hold no other office during their tenure as judges.

C - The term of office of the Chief Justice shall begin on the first day of the months of August and February. Nominations and referendums for the full term shall take place during the months of July and January. The term of office of the Associate Justices shall begin on the first day of the months of May and November. Nominations and referendums for the full term shall take place during the months of April and October. The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices shall be nominated by the Prime Minister with the advice and consent of the Cabinet, and during the interim period between the creation of a vacancy in the office of Chief Justice or an Associate Justice and the confirmation and installation of a successor to that office, the nominee shall serve as an acting judicial officer on the Court of The North Pacific and have the authority to exercise the duties and responsibilities of the office.
Click to expand...
 
The main reasoning behind this was due to the fact that it's really easy to do this at this point. The Justice terms are already staggered by three months, and by overlapping the terms in this way, we ensure that someone experienced is always in the Court, and that we always have at least one justice.
 
It also tends to de-politicize judicial position to a certain extent.
 
The point needs to be made that shifting the terms for the Associate Justices is not a justification for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to avoid nominating in the future or to not do so on time.
That was the real problem, and while this may be a fix this time, we can't be amending the Constitution and shifting judicial terms over and over because of such a failure in the future.
Does anyone have a idea of a way to avoid such a lapse in the future?
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The point needs to be made that shifting the terms for the Associate Justices is not a justification for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to avoid nominating in the future or to not do so on time.
That was the real problem, and while this may be a fix this time, we can't be amending the Constitution and shifting judicial terms over and over because of such a failure in the future.
Does anyone have a idea of a way to avoid such a lapse in the future?
Click to expand...
The obvious one would be to impeach whoever isn't doing their job - but that is a bit extreme and won't exactly help the problem. The most viable choice would be to pester the hell out of whoever's doing the appointing until it gets done. Works every time.
 
I think Hers' idea is reasonable, and although I share Grosse's concerns, that's almost a function of the job of Justice -- a job where one has to be careful whom one appoints, and a job where the voters will only tolerate specific, known people to take the office.

That, far from being a bad thing, is a good thing -- you don't want an unknown quanitity interpreting your Constitution. However, the side effect is what we saw this past term, where there weren't many people up for nomination and things stalled.

EDIT: Practical question though.. How would we implement this? Next term (August I believe), Byard's term is up. If we pass this, will his be the only open position then? Or what.. Part C is a little confusing, and I haven't been following the discussion that closely due to being busy in RL -- could someone explain this?
 
When the confirmation election for PM is finished, the new PM will be able to appoint the two associates, who will serve until November. Come August, the only position that will need to be appointed would be Chief Justice.

Clause C is probably confusing because something got stuck in there that shouldn't be. It should read as follows (and I'll edit your post above in a second to match this)
C - The term of office of the Chief Justice shall begin on the first day of the months of August and February. Nominations and referendums for the full term shall take place during the months of July and January. The term of office of the Associate Justices shall begin on the first day of the months of May and November. Nominations and referendums for the full term shall take place during the months of April and October. The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices shall be nominated by the Prime Minister with the advice and consent of the Cabinet, and during the interim period between the creation of a vacancy in the office of Chief Justice or an Associate Justice and the confirmation and installation of a successor to that office, the nominee shall serve as an acting judicial officer on the Court of The North Pacific and have the authority to exercise the duties and responsibilities of the office.
Click to expand...
So the schedule would be as follows:
January - Chief Justice Appointed, RA confirms candidate.
Feburary - Chief Justice Term Begins.
March - Nothing.
April - Assosiate Justices Appointed, RA confirms candidates.
May - Associate terms begin.
June - Nada.
July - Chief Justice Appointed, RA confirms candidate.
August - Chief Justice Term Begins.
September - Squat Diddly.
October - Assosiate Justices Appointed, RA confirms candidates.
November - Associate terms begin.
December - Naptime. And the holidays.
 
I don't see anything wrong with it...

EDIT - for current vacancies we would simply appoint replacements like we would for cabinet members, and such would be procedure for other mid-term vacancies.
 
Actually, for vacancies in mid-term, it's still the same procedure as it would be at the designated time for a new judicial term of office; the difference is that a mid-term nominee gets tp serve as an acting Justice until the confirmation referendum is completed.
If a nominee is rejected at the referendum then the PM and Cabinet have to promptly make another nomination, and that nominee would then become an acting Justice in place of the rejected nominee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top