Lame Duck Court

New Kervoskia

New Kervoskia

TNPer
Mr Speaker, it alarms me that the current court is a remnant of the old constitution. A bill would be needed to correct this. Suggestions, opinions?
 
Since the Constitutional amendment that serves as the new Constitution did not abolish the Court, but continued it, in my judgment the two current Justices remain in office until elections are held by the Regional Assembly in April, in accordance with the new election dates law.

Likewise, nominations are currently being taken to fill the vacancy created when Mr. Gaunt was elevated to Chief Justice. I have no idea why Haor Chall failed to nominate a replacement under the old Constitution, but that doesn't prevent the RA from electing a replacement now to fill that open seat.
 
I see no place where it states that the existing Judiciary is continued.

Nor does the Constitution specify the process for nomination and elections. It only provides for the term of office.

I has always been my opinion, and remains so, that the former Judiciary is invalid, as it was elected under a now defunct constitution. Elections for a new Judiciary, in it's entirely, are called for in my opinion, in order to validate the Judiciary under the new Constitution.
 
Lewis and Clark:
I see no place where it states that the existing Judiciary is continued.

Nor does the Constitution specify the process for nomination and elections. It only provides for the term of office.

I has always been my opinion, and remains so, that the former Judiciary is invalid, as it was elected under a now defunct constitution. Elections for a new Judiciary, in it's entirely, are called for in my opinion, in order to validate the Judiciary under the new Constitution.
Click to expand...
I disagree since the judges have worked with an ever changing constitution with near weekly new amendments in the old government. As a private citizen, I think it's good to keep them until their terms end as trials seem to be more about fair process as the actual rulings on law being the suspenseful ending.
 
Technically, the "new" constitution was adopted as an amendment of the former constitutional language. Bbefore, there was a three member court, with a Chief Justice; after, there is a three member Court with a Chief Justice, so there was no change. The terms of office of justices were changed under the former constitutional language, and terms were continued without requiring a total re-selection process. The current language is just another similar change, which left the terms of office to the RA to settle by law. And while the current language repealed statute language in Legal Code, it did not mention any changes in the Court's power to set its own procedures, so that is another indicator that no abolition of the Court was intended.

In the absence of a current law, custom will apply. The Constitution currently places the responsibility of procedure within the Regional Assembly, in the absence of an enacted procedure, in the charge of the Speaker, as the chair of the Regional Assembly. We do have precedent for elections in the Regional Assembly; been done quite a few times, in fact, so it's not like there is no basis to determine how to proceed with judicial elections in April.
 
It was done as an amendment, because you presented that way, but the intent of creating a new Constitution was not for it to be an amendment, but to be new in it's entirety.

I was involved in the original formulation of this constitution. The intent was an entirely new government, top to bottom. That the structure remained in tact does not equate to carrying over the same existing people without new election. The spirit of renewal is to give the entire region the opportunity for a new start. Not everyone except the Judiciary.

The responsibility for procedure for the Judiciary lies with the Judiciary according to the Constitution, not with the Speaker.
 
No and I apologize if it seems that way but I'm merely trying to comprehend the reasons for ditching the current roster of judges who are longstanding citizens (some older players than the delegate himself) and have lengthy experience in this region's jurisprudence.

Their legal expertise is unrivaled with the passing Byard and I see absolutely no reason why we need to replace them, especially when the Chief Justice was the main architect of the Constitution.
 
mr_sniffles:
Their legal expertise is unrivaled with the passing Byard and I see absolutely no reason why we need to replace them, especially when the Chief Justice was the main architect of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
I didn't know MonteOzarka was the Chief Justice. Wow.
 
State secret.

Why not let the people decide whether "Their legal expertise is unrivaled"? Whether or not their legal expertise is unrivaled is tangential to the fact that we have a new Constitution/government, as the delegate explained.
 
mr_sniffles:
..., especially when the Chief Justice was the main architect of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
:blush: Oh, thank you very much, but my influence on the new TNP Constitution was not sooo extremely high. ;)

It is my self-understanding as Chief Justice that I should not interfere too much with the Legislative.
Concerning the question whether urgent re-election of the Court is necessary I mainly agree with Grosse here. There has not been a significant change regarding the Court so no immediate action is required. From a pragmatic point of view, waiting for the next scheduled election date is sufficient.
 
Great, strip and purge the NPA and NPIA, now go after the Court.

If the Court is stripped or subdued, kiss the region and government goodbye. Pave the road to tyranny.
 
I say we dump the court and the whole justice system, merely to be replaced with arbitrary sentencing of "six months of your life wasted"


I love the way Lord Roman see's calls for elections as a path to tyranny and makes allusions to the Great terrors of Stalin. His ability for accurate analogy is one I have always loved :rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top