Chief Justice etc

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
Welcome to Leekem as our new justice.

First order of business: one of us three needs to be Chief Justice. So who wants the job?

the CJ will serve out the remainder of this term. Once we have elected a chief justice that is it - our laws do not allow for their removal.

For the record, I do not want to be Chief Justice.
 
flemingovia:
Actually, I think we need a fresh approach. You would have my vote if you wanted the job.
Click to expand...
Really, I wouldn't think you guys would want a newcomer like myself, I thought you would want someone with more experience. But if you trust me I will take the job with no hesitation. I have the dogmatic determination to get the job done and know the laws to an extent where I will be able to lead our judiciary team. Thank you Flem and I accept.
 
I would be happy to be Chief Justice.

I've been on the Court a number of times over the years so I know all the bugs that need to be worked out, how things work as a whole, and what we need to do to file off the rough edges and make the entire legal system move more smoothly.

I would like to see some serious procedural reform (in terms of simplification and clarification) which I think we can actually accomplish with the slate we now have on the bench. I'm open to all ideas that would make life easier for the Court and all involved in a way that we don't get 'stuck in the process'.
 
I think that makes the vote 2-1 in favour of leekem.

We ought to post the result.

Leekem, as the new cj it is your place to announce the result in the public court thread and take your oath in the appropriate government thread.
 
Yes Roman, I knew we discussed it that you would be the new cj but I said that because I didn't think I could do this job; but I have faith in me and so does flem and we need a fresh approach to things around here and therfore I am reanoucing my desire to be cj. I hope you are still on my side because I cannot do this without your support and flems. Thank you
 
Good day fellow Justices,​
 So sorry for my late response, I have been very busy with schoolwork and etc., but this is a month of action. As you saw from recent government polling, we do not have TNPs support and if we’re planning to run for re-election we need to put in some crucial law reforms; now change is not easy but it’s inevitable. I only have two goals for this month to show The North Pacific that this court is effective and as your Chief Justice I will make sure we do this. First goal is to give our attorney general, a clarification of fraud. I am a very terse person and you will soon realize that about me. I have one word for fraud, “deception”, that is evidently what it is. I was reading Roman piece of fraud and I think it clears up all the semantics. Number two we need to have some serious law reforms, like Roman had said. I believe we should give a more in dept clarification of fraud to the constitution, I hope Roman works with me on drafting a rule for this, and one more pertaining to any matter. I believe this will get the citizens back on our side and for the duration of the election cycle. I hope I have your cooperation fellow justices.
Sincerely,
Chief Justice Leekem
 
Drop me a few questions on the draft if there is anything that you think might need to be 'cleaned up' or otherwise, for lack of a better term, clarified. :P


I've never been much on being concerned about polling data when it comes to the Judiciary as the main defense against polling data is to deliver court decisions that are logical, objective and are arrived at through unimpeachable logic. Unfortunately, a great deal of people don't quite understand how the court functions and what the court is up against when trying to adjudicate cases and then trying to explain judgments in a way that isn't intimidating.

Court rules need to be changed so that they simple and not complicated thought the unnecessary 'imitation' of RL legal proceedings. One of the ways to do this is to make sure that any decisions involving particular laws (such as cases involving clarifications of certain laws or requests for clarification of specific laws) is to render clarifications with precise logic that eliminates any use of 'subjective' arguments that appeal to emotion or self interest on the part of litigants. That said, the other half of the trick is to leave room for flexibility of interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top