Belschaft for Justice

I had been, until recently, planning a humorous run for this office on an absurd and frankly seditious platform of proclaiming Astarial Empress, a position she is well suited to and would perform excellently. However, considering the current state the region has descended - most recently with what I can only term the convention of a lynch mob that tried to overthrow both the courts and the election commission - the time for such jokes has passed. Serious times call for serious men.

As such, my first action must be to endorse and call for the election of Hileville. His record of service is commendable, and with his election there would exist a majority of sane individuals on the court regardless of who fills the second slot. Guaranteeing this is the most important thing, and as such I pledge every moment I can spare in the coming days to ensuring Hileville is returned as Justice, this being a more important cause than any ambitions I may have myself.

Beyond this most vital task, I offer myself as a candidate for the second vacancy. I stand upon a proven record as an opponent of legislating from the bench, a defender of liberty, especially the rights of free speech and freedom from malicious prosecution - being the author of the much hated but legally mandated decision in TNP vs. Govinda - and a man of principle. I have said previously that service to ones region is a duty, not a privilege, and it is in this spirit I stand for election. I open the floor to any and all questions people may have of me.

Will you follow the Constibillocode at all times?

Will you accept bribes from me?

Whilst I believe that the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Legal Code must be fully enforced by the government I cannot discount the possibility that there may arise a situation where I find myself possessing a moral objection to such enforcement. For example, the Bill of Rights could be amended by the Assembly to remove the legally sanctioned provisions regarding protected speech. Under such circumstances the duty of the Court to enforce the law would produce a requirement for the Justices to convict an individual for the simple act of speaking in a way deemed objectionable by another - see the rightfully overturned sedition law for reference - which I would find unpalatable on moral grounds. Under such circumstances I would be unable to enforce the law, and would be compelled to resign the office on point of principle. I see no possible alternative under those circumstances, judicial activism being clearly against the intent of the framers of the constitution, and enforcement of an unjust law being beyond my moral constitution.

Whilst some may prefer an open pledge to enforce the law no matter what, I believe such would be dishonest of me. To deny the possibility of a moral objection to the law is to proclaim the adherence to no higher law. That is something I cannot do, and I am of firm opinion that the public does not desire Justices lacking in any morality independent from the provisions of the law.

Regarding your offer of pecuniary inducement, I freely decline. Knowing your personal predilection for rampant criminality I have no doubt that you will continue to provided me with substantial income as retained counsel with out further, illicit, transactions.

Surely someone else has at least one question?

I'll indulge you
So to clarify, you will knowingly violate the Constitution if you believe it's morally correct to do so?

Will you recuse yourself from cases arising out of TSP's recent incident, due to your obvious personal bias?

I'll indulge you
So to clarify, you will knowingly violate the Constitution if you believe it's morally correct to do so?

Click to expand...

The current constitution? No. But I do not deny the possibility that it could be amended in such a way that I would feel compelled to do so.

Will you recuse yourself from cases arising out of TSP's recent incident, due to your obvious personal bias?

Click to expand...

Whilst I seriously doubt we'd be able to find anyone who doesn't have any existing bias, mine is more severed than most so I would of course recuse myself.

What are your thoughts on the current litigation culture in TNP? Do you think the Court can and/or should address this, or is it an issue for the RA alone?

Malashaan:

What are your thoughts on the current litigation culture in TNP? Do you think the Court can and/or should address this, or is it an issue for the RA alone?

Click to expand...

The court definitely has a part to play. Nothing anyone says or does is going to stop TNPers being litigious - I'd suggest that's caused by the makeup of the community. What the court needs to do is alter its own procedures and rules so that it becomes the place of final appeal, not first. As a Justice I would, for example, refuse to accept most requests for judicial review unless the issue has first been discussed in the regional assembly. However, when matters do get to the court they need to be dealt with as promptly and simply as possible, and the rules amendment to allow that. I'm less interested in replicating fully a judicial process than having a functional court, and the way to achieve that is to elect Justices that are competent, fair and trustworthy and then allow them to go about determining facts in a way that works.