Judicial Impartiality

[punk d]

The Justices' main job is to make impartial judgments when they are asked to. Because of this, there is an expectation, unique to their office, that they exercise some restraint when expressing their opinions on the public affairs of the region. Otherwise they may find themselves in an undesirable position where their impartiality is questioned and they are no longer able to do their job.

r3n, the above quote is from you. Does requesting an override of the delegate's veto fall within the areas where justices should (your words) "exercise restraint when expressing their opinions on the public affairs of the region"?

 

[r3naissanc3r]

Motioning to override a legislative veto is no different than motioning to move any random bill to vote. It is part of the standard legislative procedure, not criticism of the Delegate's decision.

I explained in my electoral campaign that I do not intend to abstain from legislating, because I do not believe that doing so compromises my impartiality.

 

[punk d]

Motioning to override a legislative veto is no different than motioning to move any random bill to vote. It is part of the standard legislative procedure, not criticism of the Delegate's decision.

I explained in my electoral campaign that I do not intend to abstain from legislating, because I do not believe that doing so compromises my impartiality.

Essentially then your comment regarding public affairs is, how shall I say, untrue.

Listen, if you want to be in public affairs fine. That's your opinion, but don't say you do or don't based upon the convenience of a particular situation.

Actively participating in legislation IS public affairs so I hope in your reply you do not try to insinuate that it is not.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

not criticism of the Delegate's decision.

Oh, okay.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

Essentially then your comment regarding public affairs is, how shall I say, untrue.

Listen, if you want to be in public affairs fine. That's your opinion, but don't say you do or don't based upon the convenience of a particular situation.

Actively participating in legislation IS public affairs so I hope in your reply you do not try to insinuate that it is not.

My previous comment on public affairs (the one you quoted) and my current stance are perfectly consistent with each other.

Let's see what I did say:

1) I said, in my previous comment, that Justices should exercise some restraint when commenting on public affairs, to the degree that that is necessary to avoid compromising their perceived ability to make impartial judgments.
2) Even before I became a Justice, I explained in detail why I believe participating actively in legislating does not compromise a Justice's impartiality, and therefore is acceptable conduct under the standard set out in (1).

Let's see what I did not say:

1) I did not say that Justices should not express any opinion and not get at all involved in the public affairs of the region.
2) I did not say that participation in legislating is not public affairs.

My stance so far has been in agreement with the things I did say. Your contention that my stance contradicts my statements is based on the things I did not say.

Your argument is a straw man.

 

[punk d]

Let me rebuild this alleged straw man:

Here's something else you said:

Another, more serious risk, is that a judge may find themselves involved in a political debate over a controversial piece of legislation. Judges should just steer clear of such cases.

That this bill was vetoed by the delegate probably puts it in the category of ‘controversial’. I believe it also passed 19 to 14 so I do not believe you'll argue that it has uncontroversial or better stated, you can’t argue the bill had universal support.

What you did say was that justices should "steer clear of such cases". Now you may have meant 'cases' as in reviews or cases as in legislative situations. I am unclear on this point, but I presume it to be the latter. Either way what you did say what that if a particular case was controversial justices should steer clear of them.

Motioning to overturn a delegate's veto is not steering clear of such cases; it's putting oneself right smack dab in the middle of the fray.

But after you did say the above you gave yourself the ultimate "free pass":

Balancing the above, I believe the situation is not black-and-white. Judges should not be expected to absolutely abstain from legislative debate; neither should they be afforded the same free-from-restraint participation as other members. Instead, they should be expected to use their own good judgment, and get involved only to the extent that does not compromise their ability, either actual or perceived by the public, to make impartial decisions.

Here, you say it is a balance and that justices should use their own good judgment. This essentially says "forget about what I said in the last paragraph, I'm going to do whatever the heck it is I want to do."

What I am saying is that in one breath saying justices should try to stay away from controversial cases and exercise "some" restraint, and then in the next breath injecting yourself into a controversial bill that did not pass with overwhelming support AND was vetoed by the delegate…

is doing the exact opposite of what you did say.

Lastly, I've always found it fascinating that when caught, people often revert to calling arguments against them 'straw men'. I'm disappointed you have reverted to such form. This isn't a straw man argument. Instead, you're doing what you said you wouldn't do and didn't recommend other justices do.

Calling you out on this isn’t a straw man argument. It’s just reminding you of what you did say.

EDIT: Posted 1 minuted after CoE and did not see his comment.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Thank you to the arbiters of what is relevant to a discussion. As an RA member who is supposedly free to express their opinion, I certainly appreciate having my comments relegated to a "banter" thread.

Ren wants to try to say that putting forward a proposal to override a veto is not out of line with his statement about staying out of controversial legisltive decisions. I believe I am equally within my rights to believe that is horse crap, and to say so in the same thread. I am happy that Punk D has the energy to actually try to point out his cognitive dissonance, but I will take the shorter sarcastic route.

 

[SillyString]

As an RA member who is supposedly free to express their opinion, I certainly appreciate having my comments relegated to a "banter" thread.

I split these comments out because I think they do deserve to be discussed. The nature and practice of judicial impartiality in TNP is important, and is worth considering carefully, and it would be a shame for that discussion to not be held - you can see from punk's comment that if he had noticed COE's request for that thread to stay focused on the override specifically, he would not have responded further. That would have been unfortunate.

Edit: I apologize for the subtitle - forgot I did that. It's gone now.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

I was thanking you, Silly.

 

[Ash]

R3n has taken some surprisingly bold stances since becoming Chief, aggressively pushing legislation that is contentious in the RA. Has TNP had issues in the past with judicial impartiality, and should there be a clean break between the RA and the Court?

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I don't have a problem with a judge wearing an RA hat. More power to 'em. There could be a problem with say, a Constitutional challenge of a bill that was authored by the judge. But that's a problem with the judging, not the legislating.

The only other problem I might have would be a candidate for election doing something he said he wouldn't do. You know, like that Weiner guy.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

First, I will address the straw man.

Lastly, I've always found it fascinating that when caught, people often revert to calling arguments against them 'straw men'. I'm disappointed you have reverted to such form. This isn't a straw man argument. Instead, you're doing what you said you wouldn't do and didn't recommend other justices do.

Calling you out on this isn’t a straw man argument. It’s just reminding you of what you did say.

I did not "revert" to calling an argument a straw man as a defense for "being caught". I highlighted a textbook example of a straw man.

In the post the straw man was referring to, you claimed that I said two things which I did not say. Let's take a closer, technical look at the two parts of your post where the straw man happens.

Listen, if you want to be in public affairs fine. That's your opinion, but don't say you do or don't based upon the convenience of a particular situation.

Here, you are attacking me on the premise that I said I would unconditionally not participate in public affairs. I never made such a statement. You could have attacked me on the premise that this particular instance falls outside the conditions I set for when participation is acceptable. That would indeed not be a straw man but a valid attempt at a rebuttal. But you did not do that in that post.

Actively participating in legislation IS public affairs so I hope in your reply you do not try to insinuate that it is not.

I never said or even implied that actively participating in legislation is not public affairs, either in my response or ever in the past. One could say that this statement is irrelevant, but then you continued to use this false premise in a preemptive manner for a further attack.

In both of the above instances, you used false premises in the form of statements I did not make or positions I did not take, to substantiate counter-arguments. This is the exact definition of a straw man.

If anyone was "caught", to use your phrasing, it was yourself. As soon as your straw man was pointed out, in your following post you backtracked and changed your approach, bothering to read the things I did actually say and analytically discuss those. This is indeed proper and fine. It does not undo the fact that your previous post was a straw man, blatantly so.

---

Let's move on then to this new post of yours.

Here's something else you said:

Another, more serious risk, is that a judge may find themselves involved in a political debate over a controversial piece of legislation. Judges should just steer clear of such cases.

That this bill was vetoed by the delegate probably puts it in the category of ‘controversial’. I believe it also passed 19 to 14 so I do not believe you'll argue that it has uncontroversial or better stated, you can’t argue the bill had universal support.

What you did say was that justices should "steer clear of such cases". Now you may have meant 'cases' as in reviews or cases as in legislative situations. I am unclear on this point, but I presume it to be the latter. Either way what you did say what that if a particular case was controversial justices should steer clear of them.

Motioning to overturn a delegate's veto is not steering clear of such cases; it's putting oneself right smack dab in the middle of the fray.

First, to clarify, I meant indeed the latter, cases as in legislative situations.

You are missing a key part Punk: "political debate".

This discussion so far has been a purely legislative debate. We are not discussing somebody's performance or criticising their actions. We are not questioning someone’s allegiances or accusing them of secret agendas. We are not discussing executive policy. We are not discussing granting one faction undue influence or power, or suppressing those of another faction. Note that these are all things that happened in the previous instance of this bill; had they occurred again in this one, I would have refrained from taking part.

Instead, what we have been discussing, exclusively so, is the positive and negative utility of a law. There is a divergence of opinion on the matter, with a large fraction of RA members viewing the law as useful, and a somewhat larger fraction (judging by vote numbers) viewing it as not as much. This makes the bill controversial. It does not make the debate political. It does not make the debate one where any of the risks I pointed out in the relevant paragraph of my electoral campaign (the one you partially quoted) exist.

In the same manner as the debate has been a purely legislative, so have all of the actions taking place during the debate. When I motion for this bill to go to vote, I am following legislative procedure. I am not exhibiting favoritism towards those supporting the bill, or making criticism towards those opposing it. The same applies to motioning to override the Delegate’s veto. It is not a political maneuvre. I could have very easily turned it into one if I wanted, by making a speech against the Delegate’s actions. I did no such thing, as that would have been completely out of place. All such a motion by itself is is part of the standard procedure prescribed by the Constitution for enacting legislation. All I did was follow this procedure.

But after you did say the above you gave yourself the ultimate "free pass":

Balancing the above, I believe the situation is not black-and-white. Judges should not be expected to absolutely abstain from legislative debate; neither should they be afforded the same free-from-restraint participation as other members. Instead, they should be expected to use their own good judgment, and get involved only to the extent that does not compromise their ability, either actual or perceived by the public, to make impartial decisions.

Here, you say it is a balance and that justices should use their own good judgment. This essentially says "forget about what I said in the last paragraph, I'm going to do whatever the heck it is I want to do."

Punk, I say nothing like that. This is a complete and deceitful misrepresentation of my statement.

If you look at the paragraph preceding this one, you will see that I compiled a long list of risks involved in judges taking part in the legislative process. You chose to only partially quote that paragraph, and then treated that partial quote as if it were the entire paragraph. By doing so, you make it appear as if I contradicted myself.

What I say here is complementary, not contradictory. I say that there are pros and cons in judges being involved in legislating. Then I say that judges should use their good judgment, weighting (i.e., “balancing”, I never said that “it is a balance” as you claim) these pros and cons before deciding where to get involved, and ensuring that when they do get involved they do not compromise their impartiality. In particular, I say, they should steer clear of political debate over controversial pieces of legislation, because in those cases their impartiality is indeed compromised.

Ren wants to try to say that putting forward a proposal to override a veto is not out of line with his statement about staying out of controversial legisltive decisions. I believe I am equally within my rights to believe that is horse crap, and to say so in the same thread. I am happy that Punk D has the energy to actually try to point out his cognitive dissonance, but I will take the shorter sarcastic route.

I already addressed this in the second part of my response to Punkd. I refer you to that part of my post.

R3n has taken some surprisingly bold stances since becoming Chief, aggressively pushing legislation that is contentious in the RA. Has TNP had issues in the past with judicial impartiality, and should there be a clean break between the RA and the Court?

Ash, I refer you to the several bills I have submitted, co-sponsored, or just co-authored. You will see that many (most?) of them have been contentious, even bold some would say, and this is because these bills bring about innovative change; disagreements are bound to arise when change is proposed. You will also see that my tone in arguing their merits has been the same in all of them, regardless of whether I was Chief Justice at the time. You call it “aggressive pushing”, I call it making convincing and comprehensive arguments in favor of change I support. Finally, you will see in particular that I have never turned any of these discussions into political debates.

The only other problem I might have would be a candidate for election doing something he said he wouldn't do. You know, like that Weiner guy.

Not entirely sure whether you are implying that I myself am also doing something I said in my campaign I would not do, as I am not a “candidate for election”. In any event, if you believe that and have a problem with it, you have every right to motion for my recall.

 

[SillyString]

The only other problem I might have would be a candidate for election doing something he said he wouldn't do.

I mean, if you want to talk about candidates doing something they said they wouldn't do...

Roman supports judicial abstention from RA votes in his campaign.

Roman's voting record since being elected justice:
Abstain: 3 times
Aye: 3 times
Nay: 2 times

And r3n's the one getting scolded here, when his record is a set of perfect Abstains, just as he promised?