Addressing Judicial Reform

Gracius Maximus

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
It looks like the vote is going to fail on the Judicial Reform amendment.

I believe this is due to the inclusion of two separate and somewhat contradicting ideas in regards to how to address the need for replacement Justices or how to work around absent Judges.

Currently, we all seem to be very active here and I would hope that to be actual throughout our six month term but perhaps we should consider drafting a new version of the "reform" issue to present to the RA collectively.

Does anyone have any actual thoughts on how to address the issue?
 
Allow the two sitting justices to pick a temporary third justice if the third is unavailable? Allow two justices to formally remove a third justice and initiate a replacement vote within the RA? Allow the Speaker and/or Delegate to appoint an interim judge? Allow the Delegate or Speaker to be an interim judge?

If the problem is just inactivity, then there's only so many effective solutions. Letting the Speaker and Delegate select a third Justice if the two sitting ones can't agree seems like the easiest.
 
If the two judges cannot reach a joint verdict (if they can, there is no point in finding a 3rd justice...??), the Delegate should appoint a replacement temp justice. If two justices are disagreeing there is no point in getting them to jointly appoint someone, I can see that may not work.
 
Right, that is why I originally suggested the Delegate and Speaker do so jointly since they are both elected positions outside of the Court.
 
I hope to get to work on something for this issue early next week. I was asked to address the Security Council amendment and have been a bit sidetracked with that but it will be failing soon and I plan to leave them with it since it does not effect the Court directly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top