Judicial Reform

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
It has become obvious to us all now that our Court system is broken. One judge calling in sick seems to gum up the entire process, as such we need to change the way rulings are done. What I propose is a process to allow courts to make a decision even if one or two members are unable to hear a case and a way to enforce a speedy decision or the judges are out on their asses.

Cons Art. 5:
Section 2: Court Powers

1. The Judiciary is vested with the responsbility to oversee all trial proceedings.
2. All matters of judicial review to examine the constitutionality of Government policies, actions, and laws are to be brought before the full three-member Judiciary.
3. If a full three-member Judiciary cannot be filled, then official opinions are to be decided on by whichever member or members left.
4. Recall elections will begin immediately for the presiding judges on an opinion, should a decision take over two weeks.
5. The official opinions crafted as a result of judicial review are to be binding upon all agents, officers, agencies, and Government bodies of TNP. If a policy, action, or law is deemed unconstitutional, any evidence collected via these unconstitutional means is inadmissible in the Assembly or in any TNP court of law.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the language could be polished but the need for this type of legislation is immediate.
 
Let's be clear about a few things:

First, the two proceedings that were briguht were the first two to reach submission to the COurt for a decision. Until now, there had been no reason or opportunity to place the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Legal Code to the context of a actual issue. Given that lack of precedent under our current system, it is not reasonable to assume that any case can be decided in a arbitrary amount of time.

Second, the drafters of the current Constitution were very clear about ourt limited jusrtidiction and that while a single judge could try a criminal case, all three justices had to determine questions of constitutionality. A better alternative would be to allow the Court to appoint a temporaryu justice to fill the panel. Demanding that a two-judge panel decide the case anyway could lead to a deadlock, which happened in one of the two cases. And demanding that a sole justice decide a case of constitutionality when the framers of the current constitution wanted a the full court to do so imposes the very result they wanted to avoid.
 
No one is happy with events of late, and it's not because the court has not issued a ruling in any one person's favour. It's that they have issued NO rulings at all. You're zero for three, you had three chances to simply DO YOUR JOBS. Three times you've failed.

What's the point in having a judicial system if it does nothing but pass the buck? We need to require judges to do their jobs or lose it. That simple.
 
mr_sniffles:
A temporary judge system is interesting but difficult to impose, who and how would they be selected?
Click to expand...
You'd have to get someone all three judges agreed to.... :blink:

I think members of the judiciary should be barred from holding other positions in the government, either elected or appointed. Especially if this amendment was to go through. I don't like the idea of an entire term where the legality of government action could be decided by just one person.
 
Namyeknom:
mr_sniffles:
A temporary judge system is interesting but difficult to impose, who and how would they be selected?
Click to expand...
You'd have to get someone all three judges agreed to.... :blink:

I think members of the judiciary should be barred from holding other positions in the government, either elected or appointed. Especially if this amendment was to go through. I don't like the idea of an entire term where the legality of government action could be decided by just one person.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Second, the drafters of the current Constitution were very clear about ourt limited jusrtidiction and that while a single judge could try a criminal case, all three justices had to determine questions of constitutionality. A better alternative would be to allow the Court to appoint a temporaryu justice to fill the panel. Demanding that a two-judge panel decide the case anyway could lead to a deadlock, which happened in one of the two cases. And demanding that a sole justice decide a case of constitutionality when the framers of the current constitution wanted a the full court to do so imposes the very result they wanted to avoid.
Click to expand...
The drafters of the constitution (that is - US!) have found the current provisions to be an impediment to achieveing the desired responsiveness from the court. We think we would like to try doing it another way.
 
No matter how its framed, we will still need to have the capacity to have a temporary justice(s) to fill the panel if there is a conflict that precludes aparticipation by a Justice in a specific case. y tradition the justice involved has to decide for him or her self whether to recuse themselves from a case.

If you try to force a two-member panel to reach a decision that they agree on when they do not agree deadlock will still happen. Adding a explicit provision permitting the Court to add temporary justices (so long as they are members of the RA and otherwise could meet the requirements to be a justice) would aid the process considerable, as the Court could then exercise its rule-making powers to set up a procedure for appointing a temporary justice in advance of a need for such.
 
I do see the potential for deadlock if one Judge is absent and the two remaining Judges can not come to an agreement.

Would this alleviate that issue?

Section 2: Court Powers

1. The Judiciary is vested with the responsbility to oversee all trial proceedings.
2. All matters of judicial review to examine the constitutionality of Government policies, actions, and laws are to be brought before the full three-member Judiciary.
3. If a full three-member Judiciary cannot be filled, then official opinions are to be decided on by whichever member or members left.  If consensus can not be reached between the remaining parties then a third party, selected by the Delegate and approved by the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, will provide an opinion supporting one of the available positions.
4. Recall elections will begin immediately for the presiding judges on an opinion, should a decision take over two weeks.
5. The official opinions crafted as a result of judicial review are to be binding upon all agents, officers, agencies, and Government bodies of TNP. If a policy, action, or law is deemed unconstitutional, any evidence collected via these unconstitutional means is inadmissible in the Assembly or in any TNP court of law.
Click to expand...
 
Grosseschnauzer:
No matter how its framed, we will still need to have the capacity to have a temporary justice(s) to fill the panel if there is a conflict that precludes aparticipation by a Justice in a specific case. y tradition the justice involved has to decide for him or her self whether to recuse themselves from a case.

If you try to force a two-member panel to reach a decision that they agree on when they do not agree deadlock will still happen. Adding a explicit provision permitting the Court to add temporary justices (so long as they are members of the RA and otherwise could meet the requirements to be a justice) would aid the process considerable, as the Court could then exercise its rule-making powers to set up a procedure for appointing a temporary justice in advance of a need for such.
Click to expand...
You know the court seems to be the only place where if two people happen to disagree, they get to pass the buck. Everyone here argues with each other like cats and dogs and somehow, we still get good work done! You and Roman are just going to have play nicely.
 
I would love it if we could eliminate every preposition, article, and semantical ambiguity from the constitution. Just leave the nouns and verbs, and then we won't have to fight about interpretations. :yes:
 
In the case that the delegate or speaker is on trial and a justice has to recuse themself and the remaining two judges can't come to an agreement, we're probably screwed anyway.
 
Not if the Del or the Speaker is on trial
Click to expand...

Which is why I suggested allowing the COurt to set up procedure for appointing a temporary justice under previously established general rules.

Avoids the problem. But do whatever you want. I've resigned from the Court and the CLO; and I'll just sit back and watch y'all make everything into an even bigger mess.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Not if the Del or the Speaker is on trial
Click to expand...

Which is why I suggested allowing the COurt to set up procedure for appointing a temporary justice under previously established general rules.

Avoids the problem. But do whatever you want. I've resigned from the Court and the CLO; and I'll just sit back and watch y'all make everything into an even bigger mess.
Click to expand...
Make some language to improve it, if you feel it is so important.
 
"The Court shall adopt rules to provide for a temporary justice when one or more justices are unable or unavailable to hear a proceeding requiring a three-justice panel."

That one's a freebie; next time you'll get a bill.
 
If it is a trial then only one Judge would be presiding, the 3 panel Judiciary is for interpretive/clarification issues only, correct?

Therefore the language I presented should be sufficient.
 
Gracius Maximus:
If it is a trial then only one Judge would be presiding, the 3 panel Judiciary is for interpretive/clarification issues only, correct?

Therefore the language I presented should be sufficient.
Click to expand...
Not if the actions under judicial review were made by the Delegate or the Speaker. Yet still, I relent...


Latest draft:
Section 2: Court Powers

1. The Judiciary is vested with the responsbility to oversee all trial proceedings.
2. All matters of judicial review to examine the constitutionality of Government policies, actions, and laws are to be brought before the full three-member Judiciary.
3. The Court shall adopt rules to provide for a temporary justice when one or more justices are unable or unavailable to hear a proceeding requiring a three-justice panel.
4. Should there be no rules or no consensus between the remaining parties then a third party, selected by the Delegate and approved by the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, will provide an opinion supporting one of the available positions.
5. Recall elections will begin immediately for the presiding judges on an opinion, should a decision take over two weeks.
6. The official opinions crafted as a result of judicial review are to be binding upon all agents, officers, agencies, and Government bodies of TNP. If a policy, action, or law is deemed unconstitutional, any evidence collected via these unconstitutional means is inadmissible in the Assembly or in any TNP court of law.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you.

And just to clarify, the Delegate and Speaker would still be the best options for selecting a replacement voice, in my opinion, since they are the two "strongest" elected positions in the region. They have been given their position by the voting membership, not via appointment or any other method, therefore even if they are "biased" they are still speaking with the voice of the region, or Regional Assembly, as a whole and ultimately responsible to same.
 
I don't know if this is set in stone yet, but I figure I'll throw my two cents in.

On the matter of replacement justices, what if each of the three justices each selected a replacement for themselves. These replacements could be called assistant justices. Then if a case were to come up and a justice was absent, his/her assistant justice would be able to step right in without any need to put the trial on hold while trying to select a replacement. I would also recommend that the assistant justices be approved by all three main justices and possibly even approved by the RA.

Just a thought. ^_^
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top