Motion to Recall PunkD

New Kervoskia

New Kervoskia

TNPer
A grave travesty has occurred in TNP. An honorable citizen of our own region, a true statesman and diplomat, was deliberately purged from the ballot by an insidious Clique of bureaucrats and judicial obstructionists. This must not stand. When one of the most level-headed and reasonable members of our fair region is kept off the ballot - what chance to do mere citizens have?

Therefore I motion to recall PunkD for this gross violation of our civil liberties.
 
I'll second it, especially after he said common sense has nothing to do with court decisions.

Clearly, not fit to sit.

For!
 
Guys. This is a discussion thread, not a voting thread. It's fine if you're for or against, but just posting that one word is kinda spammy, especially when you all do it at once.

Discuss, dammit!

EDIT: Also, seeing a motion and a second, this will proceed to a vote.
 
Well, I believe that I am taking seriously the requirements of my position. I believe that I am performing them to the standards I pledged to when I took the oath of office.

I believe that some disagree with a ruling I made and are thus seeking to remove me from office for that reason.
 
punk d:
Well, I believe that I am taking seriously the requirements of my position. I believe that I am performing them to the standards I pledged to when I took the oath of office.

I believe that some disagree with a ruling I made and are thus seeking to remove me from office for that reason.
Click to expand...
As was said over 200 years ago by smarter people that us...

"The ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional is not the court; it is ultimately the People."

It's just common sense.
 
So the time has come for when someone will seek to remove a member of the Court for doing their job and simply working on a ruling that they have disagreed with?

It is a sad day for the court.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
So the time has come for when someone will seek to remove a member of the Court for doing their job and simply working on a ruling that they have disagreed with?

It is a sad day for the court.
Click to expand...
it is not a case of disagreement. It is a case of them making a ruling that has no basis in law or the rules laid out by the Election Commissioners. Even the ECs have recognised the injustice of the decision and have allowed Roman to stand.

Decisions that are disagreed with are par for the course. Decisions that are just plain BAD are a different matter.
 
CAn I ask why PunkD is being recalled and not other justices?
Is he being singled out for some reason I cannot understand?
 
An assault upon the justices as a result of them doing their job is nothing less than an assault on constitutional governance. I fear more those demagogues who, appropriating the language of liberty and claiming to represent the general will, attempt to throw out magistrates and officials who dare oppose them.
 
flemingovia:
Lord Ravenclaw:
So the time has come for when someone will seek to remove a member of the Court for doing their job and simply working on a ruling that they have disagreed with?

It is a sad day for the court.
Click to expand...
it is not a case of disagreement. It is a case of them making a ruling that has no basis in law or the rules laid out by the Election Commissioners. Even the ECs have recognised the injustice of the decision and have allowed Roman to stand.

Decisions that are disagreed with are par for the course. Decisions that are just plain BAD are a different matter.
Click to expand...

The Election Commission does not disagree with the review: the review was that the Election Commission can set a specific protocol. The request for review challenged that notion, arguing the Election Commission has no ability to do that.

Whether the protocol we intended and observed matched the protocol we announced was a separate question, and was not in the scope of the request for review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top