Romanoffia for Justice

[Romanoffia]

Romanoffia for Justice. Former Court Justice from waaaaaaaaay back.

Statement of Judicial Temperament:

1.) Strict Constructionist - Strict interpretation of the Constitution and primacy of the Constitution as the Law of The Region above legal code.

2.) Strict interpretation of the Law - I will not apply laws in a way that those laws were not intended to oversee.

3.) All defendants will be held innocent until proven otherwise - The state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

4.) Spirit of the law - See No.'s 1 and 2.

5.) Preserving the independence of the Judiciary - I will make no decisions based upon political pressure.

6.) As a point of judicial temperament, I will take into consideration the merits of the case and precedent, in that order.

7.) NO 'legislation from the bench' - That means I will not seek to create new law by interpretation of the law or new and unintended applications of the laws. See No.'s 1, 2 and 4.

8.) I will apply the 'reasonable man rule' in making decisions in certain special cases.


Any questions? Ask away.

 

[Flemingovia]

That's it? Your platform is simply to be rigorous in enforcing the law as we have it? Your platform seems to say "I am a penpusher who will just do what the rules tell me to do."

that's rather disappointing. I hoped that someone with your history in the region might be able to reflect more deeply on the adequacy or otherwise of the system as it has evolved.

So, to encourage you to think more deeply, do you feel there are any institutional flaws in our legal system? What do you feel ought to be done about them?

 

[Romanoffia]

That's it? Your platform is simply to be rigorous in enforcing the law as we have it? Your platform seems to say "I am a penpusher who will just do what the rules tell me to do."

that's rather disappointing. I hoped that someone with your history in the region might be able to reflect more deeply on the adequacy or otherwise of the system as it has evolved.

So, to encourage you to think more deeply, do you feel there are any institutional flaws in our legal system? What do you feel ought to be done about them?

First off, enforcing the laws exactly as they are written and with exact original intent IS a means of exposing the flaws in the Legal Code (I believe we've had this discussion before). A judge's job is to interpret the law, not to make the law. Legislating from the bench is a violation of separation of powers. The best way to call attention to bad laws is to actually enforce those laws; by enforcing the laws one tends to drag in constitutional issues, mostly per civil liberties and rules of evidence. A judge cannot simply say, "I think this particular law sucks marsupial gonads" and declare the law invalid or unconstitutional. A defendant has to find the flaws in a particular law and use it as a defense. A judge can only make decisions based upon the presented arguments, evidence and defense artifacts of law and constitutionality.

A judge can, however, render decisions on the constitutionality and proper application of any given law if such law is called into question with a good enough supporting argument. Also, how a law is enforced and the style in which a judge enforces those laws is Judicial Temperament. And, as such, I tend to look at a case in a way that I will assume that the defendant is innocent until proven otherwise. This means, that if I think there is even a hint of reasonable doubt, incorrect application of the law, or a constitutional issue in how the law is applied in a given case, rest assured that I will consider that in making a decision or dismissing a case (or not, as the case may be).

The best way to affect change in the legal code and system is for people to come right out and ask for a judicial interpretation concerning excrementally bad laws before those laws even come into play. If someone thinks a particular law sucks eggs, then they can simply ask for a judicial clarification or interpretation, which can include (most importantly) if the law is constitutional or not. It is even within judicial purvey to decide that a law is simply unenforceable or just plain stupid (and, in the latter case, recommend legislation to clean up the legal kitty litter box if needs be).

Now, what do I think are the institutional flaws in our legal system? First, I feel that there has been a aire of 'too quick to prosecute' floating around. By that I mean that I have seen, over the years, a lot of prosecutions that shouldn't have been brought up in the first place.

Where the institutional flaws really show up is not in procedure, per se, but in how many laws we have, or too many useless or idiotic laws, badly written laws, etc. Badly written laws are the easiest for people to challenge through simple and proper arguments for or against a law.

Another big flaw is the lack of any unified or established legal principles that allows the flexibility of the law to evolve as in the sense of Common Law and Positive Law. "the proper derivation of general principals in both common and constitutional law ... arise gradually, in the emergence of a consensus from a multitude of particularized prior decisions." (Oliver Wendell Holmes).

Principles law are extracted from the laws (statutes) themselves, but must be applied with equity, relevance and most importantly, common sense.

Also, the flaws of the legal system tend to stem from the legislative branch creating laws without any concern or basis in pre-existing "common law" and "custom". That is to say, the legislative branch needs to create laws that arise from custom - in that way, when there is an act committed by someone that is just plain wrong in the eyes of the common individual, a law is developed from that 'common law' and 'customary' origin. Some of the laws we have can be just bizarre and have no basis in custom or practice.

For instance, we have laws that pertain specifically to election fraud. But that law in the past could not be extended to slander or libel or other tortuous acts by individuals against other individual. Yet, the election fraud law is based upon the common law principle of 'fraud' as a definition. As a result, we tend to be statutory which is a big mistake because it often precludes common sense and judicial latitude.

We don't need numerous laws that concern election fraud, or the outright use of slander or libel, or deception or misrepresentation if we simply recognize that by simply making 'fraud' illegal, it can be applied to any number of unsavory and underhanded actions. All the law needs to say is "Fraud is illegal" instead of engaging in the minutiae of creating a million laws concerning each possible form of fraud.

If we adhere to the principle of common law and custom I stated in the preceding paragraph, it creates a legal system in which precedent and application of the laws, or underlying principles arising from custom, can evolve based upon judicial precedent and, which decisions must take into account future applications of the laws according to judicial decisions. In that way, the flaw of having too many statute laws, and ignoring wrong doing based upon narrowly written and over-specific laws, simply vanishes.

But creating a common law system based upon custom that can evolve to suit changing social needs can only be implemented if justices gradually create the system in their rulings. Right now, our legal system is more akin to Napoleonic Code (a codex system) rather than a precedential system that operates out of common law and custom. A common law system has been gradually developing but it needs to have justices on the bench that understand common law and customary principles applied in a reasonable, rational and common sense way and with a respect as to how those decisions will affect future application of the law.

 

[SillyString]

The best way to affect change in the legal code and system is for people to come right out and ask for a judicial interpretation concerning excrementally bad laws before those laws even come into play.

How is running to the court over every issue, leading to precedent-setting rulings with implications for everyday TNP life, preferable to drafting and passing amendments to terrible laws before any court appeal has a chance to occur?

Where do you stand on judicial abstention from all RA votes? What about abstention from discussions?

Do you feel that the sections in the Constibillocode that deal with the court, trials, rights, and so on need revision? Do you feel it would be appropriate or inappropriate for the RA and the court to work together on amendments or reforms?

 

[Romanoffia]

The best way to affect change in the legal code and system is for people to come right out and ask for a judicial interpretation concerning excrementally bad laws before those laws even come into play.

How is running to the court over every issue, leading to precedent-setting rulings with implications for everyday TNP life, preferable to drafting and passing amendments to terrible laws before any court appeal has a chance to occur?

Where do you stand on judicial abstention from all RA votes? What about abstention from discussions?

Do you feel that the sections in the Constibillocode that deal with the court, trials, rights, and so on need revision? Do you feel it would be appropriate or inappropriate for the RA and the court to work together on amendments or reforms?

"How is running to the court over every issue, leading to precedent-setting rulings with implications for everyday TNP life, preferable to drafting and passing amendments to terrible laws before any court appeal has a chance to occur?"

Because that is standard practice in TNP. Can you say, "TRADITION!"?

But seriously, such rendered judicial interpretations are common practice in any number of legal systems. It is common practice in TNP to do exactly this: when someone thinks that a law sucks or is flawed due to some kind of action on the part of a government official or individual, it acts as a precursor to legal action or not. It is the same thing as asking an attorney general to investigate a specific action to see if it is worthy of prosecution or other legal action at equity.

The problem of drafting amendments to terrible laws before those laws are tested is that no one knows exactly how those laws 'behave' until those laws are called into enforcement.

Also, when an appeal results from a court decision that is the result of a crappy law, then that appeal can only be adjudicated in terms of the crappy law. Then again, changing a law after an appeal is moot to a case that is being appealed as that would be ex post facto application of a change in the law.

And, also, such judicial pronouncements are essentially meaningless unless they are the specific result of a court case decision which takes into account precedent, the actual law, the common sense application of the law, the spirit and original intent of the law, and it's overall constitutionality.

Asking for a judges clarification of a law also helps preclude the initiation of silly suits at law by acting as a barometer of Judicial Temperament. If some moron was of the mind that saying the word "Cheese" should be considered treason, would you rather have a judge just issue the complainant a "you haven't a snowball's chance in hell" or would you rather have the AG be forced by the legal code to prosecute no matter how stupid the complaint is?

By the same token, would you want an AG to have the authority to simply not prosecute out of political motivations without an appeal to a Judge as to the legitimacy of the complaint?

"Where do you stand on judicial abstention from all RA votes? What about abstention from discussions?"

I have no problem with it at all. In fact, I think members of the Executive branch should also abstain because being a member of the Judicial or Executive branches of the government and also being member of the Legislative branch would be not only a conflict of interest but also a violation of separation of powers. Chew on that concept for a while.

This is a major flaw in our Constitution and Legal Code concerning separation of powers.

1.) We effectively claim in constitutional terms that each branch of the government is independent in terms of their purvey of power, yet we require members of the Executive and Judicial branches to also be members of the Legislative branch. This, in and of itself is a fatal flaw in separation of powers and extends greater power to those individuals who are in the Executive and Judicial branches than those who are just members of the Legislative branch alone.

2.) As a result of item No. 1, individuals in the Executive and Judicial branches have the ability to affect not only the execution and interpretation of the laws but also in the statutory construction of those laws as illustrated thusly"

a.) As a member of the Executive branch, your duty is to execute the laws, not to make them.

b.) As a member of the Judicial branch, your duty is interpret laws and set precedent by those interpretations.

Thus, being a member of more than one branch of government is not only a conflict of interest, but also a downright thwarting of the whole concept of Separation of Powers. See what I mean?

Unfortunately, the Legal Code requires that members of the Executive and Judicial branches also be members of the Legislative branches which, considering separation of powers as a theory, leads to a serious logical and rational WTF?! moment.

Hence, under the current system, as a Justice, I could not only interpret a law but also write the law in the first place as a member of the RA. That is intsitutionalized legislation from the bench. That is not a good thing.

The current logical conflicts between the Constitution and the Legal Code would result in some serious clusterf*ckery should some "affected party" point this out in a suit at law. And this point leads perfectly into your final question.


Do you feel that the sections in the Constibillocode that deal with the court, trials, rights, and so on need revision? Do you feel it would be appropriate or inappropriate for the RA and the court to work together on amendments or reforms?

You betchyer bippy it needs revision.

The Legal Code and Constitution need to be revised in such a manner that Executive and Judical branch members are NOT members of the Legislative Branch nor are required to be members thereof while serving as members of the Executive or Judicial branches of government. This alone would prevent individuals from having more than their fair share of influence and power by making "separation of powers" actually mean "separation of powers". This could simply be accomplished by creating a law that states that "no member of the Executive or Judicial Branch shall act in any Legislative fashion or in a capacity as a member of the Regional Assembly, and shall not be considered members of the Regional Assembly for quorum or voting practices, nor shall they take the floor of the RA in any legislative capacity or commentary capacity." That simple.

I feel it inappropriate for members of the Executive or Judicial branch to actually take part in any legislative process other than in the capacity to offer opinions as 'testimony' or 'advisory capacity' when requested by the RA, nor should they vote in the RA at all while holding their respective offices in other branches. This needs to be written into the law and the Constitution appropriately adjusted to reflect this.

There, of course, would be exemptions for members of the NPA and non-cabinet positions.

 

[Romanoffia]

Official Campaign Poster:

 

[SillyString]

"Where do you stand on judicial abstention from all RA votes? What about abstention from discussions?"

I have no problem with it at all. In fact, I think members of the Executive branch should also abstain because being a member of the Judicial or Executive branches of the government and also being member of the Legislative branch would be not only a conflict of interest but also a violation of separation of powers. Chew on that concept for a while.

Oy, Roman, what gives?

 

[Sanctaria]

Also, it's very common in parliamentary democracies for members of the Executive to also be members of the legislature. In fact, it's sort of a important part of them.

 

[Romanoffia]

"Where do you stand on judicial abstention from all RA votes? What about abstention from discussions?"

I have no problem with it at all. In fact, I think members of the Executive branch should also abstain because being a member of the Judicial or Executive branches of the government and also being member of the Legislative branch would be not only a conflict of interest but also a violation of separation of powers. Chew on that concept for a while.

Oy, Roman, what gives?

Technically, I should change it to 'abstain' because as a justice and the fact that it affects the court's powers directly.

I voted nay on that particular issue mainly because of this (and after thinking about it for a while):

8. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

That type of penalty should, IMHO be specific in duration and not so open-ended so as to be anything from a few seconds to 10,000 years.

Sanct:

Also, it's very common in parliamentary democracies for members of the Executive to also be members of the legislature. In fact, it's sort of a important part of them.

T'is true, and has been a long practice in TNP.