Gaspo for Associate Justice

[Gaspo]

I'll keep this short. Judges are supposed to be impartial, after all. There's no point in telling you what my policies would be, because it frankly doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not you think I can faithfully and objectively interpret, understand, and apply the law. I think I can; I hope you do too.

I'm not going to post some crazy reform platform - that's not the court's job. There are quite a few issues which could be addressed through more careful and complete Rules for the court's procedure, and I would very much like to contribute to those. As I've started doing, I will continue to prepare legislation to plug holes and address inconsistencies in the Legal Code.

Plain language is important; I don't like legalese. You won't see me post stupid legal terms in latin, and you won't see me blather on about whether a particular element of a court opinion is holding or dicta. None of that matters, to the people of TNP. What matters is fair, impartial judgments of facts and liability in legal proceedings. I think I can do it, I know I have and continue to gain the skills and knowledge necessary to improve with time (I'm a law student IRL), and I hope to answer any questions you might have.

Few quick preemptive answers to questions that I suspect might come up:

- Legislative intent is useful, but only inasmuch as it serves to help define ambiguous terms in the legislation. I don't use it to determine the meaning of a particular law - what gets put into law is what must be enforced. "Well the legislature meant to outlaw that, too" doesn't fly, with me at least. We have an active legislature here; fix things you don't like.

- Frivolous litigation needs to be addressed through court rules and some restoration of discretion to the AG's office. I've got a bill coming which I hope to use to more clearly define proper form and function of pleading, and apply to TNP a plausible pleading standard, as is (mostly) the standard in US Courts. The idea, basically, is that any complaint should contain sufficient alleged facts, such that the defendant would be deemed to be guilty of the crime if the facts were as the complaint alleged. I'm happy to expand on this further, if anyone cares, or you can just wait for the bill to show up in the RA in a week or two.

- My NS history is long and complex. There's a summary in my signature; if you want to know more, ask away.

I look forward to fielding any and all questions placed before me, and would remind everyone to be sure to vote, no matter whether you vote for me or for someone else. What's most important to the continued prosperity and vibrancy of our region, is participation.

(I failed at short. Oops.)

TL;DR issues-based platforms for judges go against the whole purpose of judges. I'm going to be impartial and apply the law as written, in good faith. If you trust me to do that, vote for me. If you don't, vote for someone else. No matter what, vote.

Edit1: Capitalization. Thank you, DRUK. TL;DR added. Thank you, Asta.

 

[Gaspo]

One other thing that might come up: Yes, I will continue defending Durk regardless of the result of this election. I have made scrupulous efforts to refrain from discussing the case in any way with the justices thus far, and that would not change if elected. With BW's resignation, an acceptable hearing officer will need to be appointed; I would not in any way go near that case. To do so would be grossly unethical. I will not, however, take on any additional clients in my time on the courts beyond those to whom I am already committed. Law professors often continue trial practice on the side; judges do not. That's the way it ought to be.

 

[punk d]

I have been impressed with you thus far, Gaspo. I'm leaning towards voting for you because I like your style.

I will need to ask you about some judicial matters because obviously being a defense counsel requires different skills than a justice. More to come.

 

[Romanoffia]

I like what I see so far, Gaspo!

You sound like a strict constructionist.

 

[Gaspo]

It's a balance, really. The law as written is the law, there's no ignoring it or distorting it to suit the needs of the moment. Extrinsic evidence is useful for understanding context, though. It's always important to look at context. When it comes to statutes, context helps define terms as they were meant at the time they were written, so it's important there. What's less important is alll the possible ways something could be interpreted, unless there is a complete absence of evidence to indicate intent.

In other words, I'm somewhat more open-minded than Justice Scalia is, but not as all-over-the-place as Kennedy or Thomas.

 

[Gaspo]

Voting seems to start quite soon; any more questions? And by more questions, I of course mean any questions to begin with.