Gracius Maximus for Justice

Gracius Maximus

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
While I have been out of the political loop for the last 4-5 years or so, the overall apparatus for governance within TNP has stayed relatively the same. In the past I have served as Election Commissioner, Attorney General and Justice/Chief Justice for the constitutional government(s). Prior to the currently derived constitutional forms I served as Minister of Justice and Delegate for The North Pacific, although there is some contention as to whether the latter was a service or an imposition.

I believe in succinct and direct Court action. I support the reworking of the current Court rules to fit the current reality of TNP rather than the RL model that exists now. I do not believe one should have to get an associate's degree (Law degrees are still just 2-yr programs right?) to take part in the legal workings of an online game.

I am happy to answer any questions provided Zetaboards continues to provide service. My answers will likely be short and to the point, which is how I prefer my Court rulings.
 
Gonna ask you the same questions I tossed at the other justice nominees:

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

2) You support reworking the court's rules. Do you feel that the sections in the Constibillocode that deal with the court, trials, rights, and so on also need revision? Do you feel it would be appropriate or inappropriate for the RA and the court to work together on amendments or reforms?
 
SillyString:
Gonna ask you the same questions I tossed at the other justice nominees:

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

2) You support reworking the court's rules. Do you feel that the sections in the Constibillocode that deal with the court, trials, rights, and so on also need revision? Do you feel it would be appropriate or inappropriate for the RA and the court to work together on amendments or reforms?
Click to expand...
1. As a member of the Regional Assembly, I believe I should have an active voice in discussions and votes.

2. I believe the Court can work efficiently within the confines of the current legal constructs. Any amendments or reforms to the Constitution, Legal Code or Bill of Rights should originate in the RA in my opinion, although I am not opposed to providing input (see #1).
 
Cormac Stark:
Given that you've couped this region, why should anyone elect you to any office -- let alone an office in our justice system?
Click to expand...
Given that I have been elected to office three times since the events of 2005 and have performed my duties exemplary, even earning accolades from Flemingovia, who has never been a fan, I would ask why wouldn't I be elected?

I know the job, I know the rules and I follow them. I don't waver, I don't sidestep, I am direct and to the point. I get the job done. That above all is what the Court has needed for a while.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Prior to the currently derived constitutional forms I served as Minister of Justice and Delegate for The North Pacific, although there is some contention as to whether the latter was a service or an imposition.
Click to expand...
Good one. :lol:

I know you will do a great job as Court Justice, and you have my support. Best of luck in your campaign.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Gracius Maximus:
Prior to the currently derived constitutional forms I served as Minister of Justice and Delegate for The North Pacific, although there is some contention as to whether the latter was a service or an imposition.
Click to expand...
Good one. :lol:

I know you will do a great job as Court Justice, and you have my support. Best of luck in your campaign.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Do you believe that Justices can impartially make rulings regarding laws that they have publicly opposed during the legislative process, or should they recuse themselves in such circumstances? In the former case, how do you think Justices can reassure the public that in making a ruling that a law they opposed is invalid, they considered the matter on the legal merits, and not with reference to their personal opposition?
 
Malashaan:
Do you believe that Justices can impartially make rulings regarding laws that they have publicly opposed during the legislative process, or should they recuse themselves in such circumstances? In the former case, how do you think Justices can reassure the public that in making a ruling that a law they opposed is invalid, they considered the matter on the legal merits, and not with reference to their personal opposition?
Click to expand...
I believe in the separation of opinion from law. My opinion on a great many things runs counter to the law but I believe in the law as absolute and support it objectively in all circumstances.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Malashaan:
Do you believe that Justices can impartially make rulings regarding laws that they have publicly opposed during the legislative process, or should they recuse themselves in such circumstances? In the former case, how do you think Justices can reassure the public that in making a ruling that a law they opposed is invalid, they considered the matter on the legal merits, and not with reference to their personal opposition?
Click to expand...
I believe in the separation of opinion from law. My opinion on a great many things runs counter to the law but I believe in the law as absolute and support it objectively in all circumstances.
Click to expand...
This type of thinking, in my opinion, is not respected in TNP.

But I respect it. You've got my vote.
 
punk d:
Gracius Maximus:
Malashaan:
Do you believe that Justices can impartially make rulings regarding laws that they have publicly opposed during the legislative process, or should they recuse themselves in such circumstances? In the former case, how do you think Justices can reassure the public that in making a ruling that a law they opposed is invalid, they considered the matter on the legal merits, and not with reference to their personal opposition?
Click to expand...
I believe in the separation of opinion from law. My opinion on a great many things runs counter to the law but I believe in the law as absolute and support it objectively in all circumstances.
Click to expand...
This type of thinking, in my opinion, is not respected in TNP.

But I respect it. You've got my vote.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

As you know, I have never been one to care overmuch about other nations' opinions of me or my actions.
 
punk d:
Please tell me age hasn't turned you into a grumpy old whiner. :p
Click to expand...
Ha. No.

But, I am a realist. Aside from yourself, the prior Court was a disgrace, in my opinion. I believe changes should be made to the internal process so that Justice can better be served when the Court is needed. But those garnering the most votes seem to be in favor of the status quo.

So my deduction is that the region prefers the Court system as it currently exists.

Luckily, it appears that the region is also electing an AG that has vowed to do nothing, so the processes of the Court will be moot.
 
There are lots of folks who haven't voted. Maybe a friendly PM would encourage them to make the right decision. It's worked for me in the past. It can also help if you get your friends to plunk for you.
 
How do you justify stating that the candidates getting the most votes are those that favor the status quo? Every candidate has stated that the law and rules need revising. Further, I've never held a significant office in TNP, so I fail to see how I could be considered "more of the same."
 
Malashaan:
How do you justify stating that the candidates getting the most votes are those that favor the status quo? Every candidate has stated that the law and rules need revising. Further, I've never held a significant office in TNP, so I fail to see how I could be considered "more of the same."
Click to expand...
Your current designation is Assistant Attorney General. Considering the disfunction of the office over the last couple of months I would grant you some of the credit. If the AG disappears then the AAGs should step up. That has not occurred.
 
That's a redirection, and one I've addressed in my own thread. I would still be interested in hearing your response to the original question.

Following up from the discussion in that thread, why should voters have confidence in you to uphold the law when you are advocating, both here and in my thread, a course of action that is clearly in violation of the law?

I don't want to end on a acrimonious note, so I will add that I think you are a good candidate, but your disregard for the facts on this issue concerns me, so I felt the need to raise it.
 
Malashaan:
That's a redirection, and one I've addressed in my own thread. I would still be interested in hearing your response to the original question.

Following up from the discussion in that thread, why should voters have confidence in you to uphold the law when you are advocating, both here and in my thread, a course of action that is clearly in violation of the law?

I don't want to end on a acrimonious note, so I will add that I think you are a good candidate, but your disregard for the facts on this issue concerns me, so I felt the need to raise it.
Click to expand...
There are other means of action beyond breaking the law. You could have advocated to the RA for an earlier recall. You could have proposed an amendment to the law to accommodate action in the event of the AG's prolonged absence. You could have posted publicly in order to address the absence so that those keeping an eye on the AG's office would at least know the current situation regarding their cases.

You claim to be an advocate for change but in the face of a glaring example of the reason change is needed you did nothing. You can claim it all you want, the bottom line is that your actions do not demonstrate this attitude at all. In fact, you dismiss the office you hold as insignificant and took no initiative whatsoever.

Caution in overstepping your place is not the same as inaction and indifference.

I disregard no facts. The fact is that you did nothing. The fact is that you could have done something, anything, and yet you did nothing because you directly or indirectly support the system as it exists.
 
I initially voted for you, but then I read your response here. Curiously, you have much to say in this thread about Malashaan but very little to say about yourself.
 
Ash:
I initially voted for you, but then I read your response here. Curiously, you have much to say in this thread about Malashaan but very little to say about yourself.
Click to expand...
I don't follow your logic. How does that statement have anything to do with Malashaan?

Also, I am glad to see that you have determined guilt without due process and changed your vote accordingly in an election for the Court. Seems somewhat fitting I guess. Baa baa little sheep.
 
You do realize that you're running for election as a Justice, right? Your negative campaigning is unsavory, and your response reveals a lack of judicious and tempered reasoning. And I sure don't need to be treated like this by someone on a game. I have more important things to worry about IRL.
 
Ash:
You do realize that you're running for election as a Justice, right? Your negative campaigning is unsavory, and your response reveals a lack of judicious and tempered reasoning. And I sure don't need to be treated like this by someone on a game. I have more important things to worry about IRL.
Click to expand...
I believe that was you. I simply respond.
 
Must you try so hard to antagonize complete strangers? A rhetorical question, the answer to which I already know. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top