Proposed Rules for Reviews

Sanctaria

Sanctaria

TNPer
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
Discord
sanctaria
We need to have rules and procedures concerning reviews. Below are a few ideas.

1. Any Nation may petition the Court for a review of government policy or law, but only those who the Court deem to have standing in a case will have their petition accepted. Standing shall, for the purposes of these rules, be defined as being personally affected by the policy or law currently in effect.

2. Any Justice may accept or deny a request for review, at his own discretion. Nations who have a request for review denied may petition the entire Court to overturn the individual Justice's decision and accept the review.

3. All reviews shall have a period of time for amicus curiae briefs. That is, a period of time in which any individual, not necessarily party to the case, can offer information that is relevant to the case and/or advise the Court on how to rule. The typical period for submission of briefs shall be 60 hours, but this may be extended or lowered at the discretion of a Justice. The Court shall retire to deliberate only after the period for briefs has ended.

I don't think we need any more than that, but it's just something that's a good idea to have.
 
I don't like the 'standing' provision. I'd like any registered citizen/RA member to have the ability to request a review on any matter regardless if they are personally affected. Essentially, if someone sees and issue that is a real issue I'd like them to be able to present it even if there's no or a flimsy personal connection.

Unless i'm misinterpreting your meaning by standing.
 
No, you understand correctly. Standing is incredibly important if the Court is to function efficiently. We can't keep having people who are not affected by a law just telling us to review it. We have better things to be doing.
 
Well tough, because then you're acting unconstitutionally. I'm only going by what's said in the Constitution. Article 4.1.
 
You've added "personally" affected where this is not in the Constitution. Again, in my opinion if a person, RA or Reg citizen, sees an issue in the law - i interpret that to be 'affected'. For instance, Gaspo's request for review as a member of the RA he's affected by the LC statute. But he did not present a particular case in which he was personally affected by this statute.

Would you grant his review in light of your rules change?
 
Oh right, you're being a pedantic douche. What a surprise.

Gaspo is personally affected as the FOIA affects all citizens. Last I checked, he is a citizen.
 
I think that's what I said.

I'm going to ask the admins to warn you if you call me another name. I request an apology for being called a "douche".
 
Thank you.

I have respect for your opinions, I do. I do not see why, from your comments, you don't respect mine. I hope we can get to a place where we can argue points and not be weighted down by name calling.

...Now that you've cleared up your meaning behind personally affected...i'm still concerned that some justice could take a narrow view of this. You don't share such concerns. Ok. It's not a point I'm willing to fall on the sword now that I better understand your meaning.
 
I don't respect the opinion of someone who said prior to getting elected, that people should break Court rules.
 
Can we all do our best not to make this court implode already (yes, this is aimed at me as well)? Please?

These rules look generally good. The only time I think standing has the potential to cause an issue is if it is mutually advantageous to those involved that there -isn't- a request to review - which is why I often think it's better to have an individual who is considered to "always" have standing (ie, the Delegate and/or the AG).

Saying that, those situations are rare, and pretty much always there's got to be -someone- who is personally affected who is in a position to ask for a review - so I'm not immovable on that point.
 
The AG does always have standing, it's in 3.1.7 of the Legal Code, iirc.
 
You can leave out personally, if you want, but I know that's how I'm going to be interpreting the clause when applying it myself.

For example in flem's request re: asta, he has no standing as he's not affected by the law.
 
3.1.7 appears to grant the AG standing in mooost reviews.

But yeah, this seems good. Will sit on it for a day or two in case any of us think of anything.
 
Bumping this up because I forgot about it and still intend on implementing them.

Unless either of you come up with any issues in the next day or two, I'll go ahead and implement them, probably after we've ruled on standing generally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top