Return GS to the Court -- it needs experienced new blood!

[Grosseschnauzer]

The Court of The North Pacific is in a rut.

It seems incapable of taking action when it should to address those issues that impede trials and meaningful reform, and has issued decisions on review that often seem more partisan written in a logic that is often hard to follow as it careens inconsistently from decision to decision.

The Court of the present day seems unwilling or unable to adopt rules to address decorum and discipline those who disrupt trials as a strategic tactic. It has abandoned any pretense of a time schedule that expedites trials in favor of a non-linear undisciplined process that sets no time schedule and no firm deadlines.

As a four-time popularly-elected Chief Justice, and a fifth term as Minister of Justice under the earliest constitution that directly led to the original creation of the Court at the Constitutional Convention, I think I have the strongest insight of what ails this Court and the tools that can and should be used to fix it.

I plan to seek further changes in the most recently revised Court rules to restore self-discipline in providing time standards for each phase of a trial, to introduce an interim measure to allow for a fair method of appeals from trial decisions, and to seek some essential changes in the constitution and legal code to facilitate the permanent introduction of an appeal process which would "divide" the court into a trial and appeal division for each case on a rotating basis.

We also need to clarify the review of government action process so that an excessive, rigid standard concerning standing does not preclude the rights of members of the R.A. to seek review of actual or potential subjects of legislation, and to encourage the adoption of objective non-judicially created out of thin air standards for Court review in a new and more workable FOIA process.

This is a lot of work, but the Court has repeatedly failed to address these problems in a way that resolves conflicts and disputes. And it seems that unless the region's most experienced jurist returns to the Court to help address these problems, they won't get addressed.

For these reasons, I am running in this judicial election; and this is one reason why I declined the short- to almost meaningless truncated term that was up in the special election last month.

Edited to fix typos.

 

[Egalotir]

If you really do promise all the changes you mentioned you've got my vote. The judicial system needs some heavy repairs. Im am curious how you plan to bring about these changes? Where do you start?

 

[falapatorius]

I agree with your estimation of the current Court, particularly with regard to schedules and deadlines. So does that mean you will adhere to time frame with any matter you undertake? Would you agree it shouldn't take over 100 days to render a decision?

With regard to courtroom decorum, how will you address disciplinary issues without a BOR conflict? As we discussed in my BOR proposal thread, the wording of the BOR can be exploited to disrupt proceedings.

Seeing that there are Justice candidates that don't necessarily see eye to eye, do you see any issues arising that have nothing to do with a case at hand? Or will the next Court be a contentious mess that can't agree on anything?

You're obviously experienced enough for the Justice position, and you make no obvious displays of partisanship. That's a good thing. Good luck in the election.

*OOC* Since you're an admin, I would hope that you put the kibosh on any unnecessary trolling of the election threads by a certain party (no.. not Roman ).

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Wow. You took up my nomination! GROSSE 4 JUSTICE! HE'LL TAKE A BITE OUT OF CRIME!

 

[Romanoffia]

Wow. You took up my nomination! GROSSE 4 JUSTICE! HE'LL TAKE A BITE OUT OF CRIME!

You beat me to that one, Paul! Grosseschnauzer would be an excellent choice for the Court!

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Good to see you running. I like to see the court well balanced and with different points of view. You will have my support Grosse.

 

[SillyString]

Grosse, you say you have concerns with the amended court rules. Can you provide a reasoning for why you have not commented in the public thread for their discussion, to air these concerns?

In what way are the current rules' clauses on disruption insufficient to address problems? What suggestions would you make?

How do you propose to enforce strict timelines on trials when real life concerns inevitably get in the way and necessitate leeway? How are preset strict deadlines more conducive to achieving justice than allowing the parties in each trial to have input and establish a timeline that works with their schedules?

You mention legislation for the RA as a priority for the Court - is legislating the Court's job? What precludes you, as an individual, from proposing legislation now if it is so desperately needed?

To move to a different topic, you have, in the past, listed health concerns as a reason not to run for office or become more involved in the RA, and took a very long leave of absence as a result of them. Do you anticipate these concerns interfering with service as a justice, or necessitating another long break?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Since I was already planning to stand for this election, I felt making any comments before now would have been seen as political grandstanding, and not a substantive disagreement over some of the changes that were made. And it's hard for me to see how any comments before announcing my candidacy yesterday would have made any impact.

These revisions also appear to have ignored any limits on the types of pre-trial motions that could be made before the completion of the preparation of evidence and testimony. You, Silly String, asked for my input privately before those revisions were adopted, and chose to ignore them. I am also not pleased about abandoning any sort of time standards whatsoever as has been done in these revised rules. With the experience of the past few years, and a number of trials, the Court could have just as easily adjusted time standards to reflect a more realistic median, getting rid of them altogether merely encourages the return of year long plus trials that never end and never reach a verdict.

If the members of the R.A. choose to elect me back onto the Court, that will be taken by me that the voters agree that these problems and others that I mentioned in the O.P. of this thread need to be addressed. That's my bottom line.

It is certainly not improper for the Court to experiment with new processes through its rules, and ask for amendment of the Constitution and Legal Code where necessary. Then there's the issue of standing, one that as far as I can tell is court-created and is in need of reform. If that requires legislation, then again I see nothing improper for the Court to ask the R.A. to do so.

The health concerns involved a situation where my primary care physician was himself unavailable for a year or so due to his own medical emergency surgery, and we're basically back to the status quo ante. I have a RL deadline that has proven to be a bear, but it should be finished about the time this election season is, so I would have time over the next few months to serve on the Court.

I am not making a career of serving in an elective office, this is a one time thing which, as soon as I complete what needs to be done and reach the end of the elected term(s) needed to do it, I will return to retirement from holding elective office. I am running as a voice for those members of the R.A. who are deeply concerned and disappointed in the direction the Court has been taking, and as a device for those members to see those issues addressed.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

So glad to hear you're running!

You have my complete support.

 

[Flemingovia]

Looking at the candidate list, I think the three front runners are probably yourself, blue wolf and queen asta (silly string)

Given the fractious relationship you and blue wolf have had over the years, do you think that both of you serving on the bench at the same time would cause you problems?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

If he can be respectful, then there won't be any problems on the Court.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

If you really do promise all the changes you mentioned you've got my vote. The judicial system needs some heavy repairs. Im am curious how you plan to bring about these changes? Where do you start?

Some of this will depend on the outcome of the election, but my goal is to seek movement and results on as much of it as possible, as quickly as possible. If there is internal resistance, then I will dissent from Court decisions as necessary and seek legislative remedies sooner than it might otherwise be necessary.

My first preference is to further revise the Court rules that were recently revised just before this election cycle began. Since I wa responsible for the original, interim Court rules dating back to my first term as Chief Justice in 2005, I am fully aware that we were operating at that time on a blank slate, but that we needed something to operate with until we gained experience in having trials and proceedings. I can't say that the correct conclusions have always been drawn from that process of development, but slowly and surely, we've been able to move towards a system where all evidence and testimony is prepared before the trial phase, my primary concern here is the sudden and total abandonment of any time standards for trials which in my judgment is the totally wrong approach to take.

 

[Egalotir]

If you really do promise all the changes you mentioned you've got my vote. The judicial system needs some heavy repairs. Im am curious how you plan to bring about these changes? Where do you start?

Some of this will depend on the outcome of the election, but my goal is to seek movement and results on as much of it as possible, as quickly as possible. If there is internal resistance, then I will dissent from Court decisions as necessary and seek legislative remedies sooner than it might otherwise be necessary.

My first preference is to further revise the Court rules that were recently revised just before this election cycle began. Since I wa responsible for the original, interim Court rules dating back to my first term as Chief Justice in 2005, I am fully aware that we were operating at that time on a blank slate, but that we needed something to operate with until we gained experience in having trials and proceedings. I can't say that the correct conclusions have always been drawn from that process of development, but slowly and surely, we've been able to move towards a system where all evidence and testimony is prepared before the trial phase, my primary concern here is the sudden and total abandonment of any time standards for trials which in my judgment is the totally wrong approach to take.

Thank you for answering my questions.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Looking at the candidate list, I think the three front runners are probably yourself, blue wolf and queen asta (silly string)

Why, God, why???

Grosse, I will be voting for you, I don't have any questions.

 

[Eluvatar]

With the experience of the past few years, and a number of trials, the Court could have just as easily adjusted time standards to reflect a more realistic median, getting rid of them altogether merely encourages the return of year long plus trials that never end and never reach a verdict.

The new rules say:

2.3 The Moderating Justice will work with both the Defense and the Prosecution to establish a reasonable timetable for the trial. Trials shall proceed linearly through the following stages:
...
2.5 As necessary, and in the interests of justice, the Moderating Justice may alter the established timetable to ensure a fair trial.

Could you please go into some detail as to why this is insufficient from your perspective?

Then there's the issue of standing, one that as far as I can tell is court-created and is in need of reform. If that requires legislation, then again I see nothing improper for the Court to ask the R.A. to do so.

1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.

Would you be seeking to amend that clause of the constitution, or do you believe it is already flexible enough?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

With the experience of the past few years, and a number of trials, the Court could have just as easily adjusted time standards to reflect a more realistic median, getting rid of them altogether merely encourages the return of year long plus trials that never end and never reach a verdict.

The new rules say:

2.3 The Moderating Justice will work with both the Defense and the Prosecution to establish a reasonable timetable for the trial. Trials shall proceed linearly through the following stages:
...
2.5 As necessary, and in the interests of justice, the Moderating Justice may alter the established timetable to ensure a fair trial.

Could you please go into some detail as to why this is insufficient from your perspective?

Then there's the issue of standing, one that as far as I can tell is court-created and is in need of reform. If that requires legislation, then again I see nothing improper for the Court to ask the R.A. to do so.

1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.

Would you be seeking to amend that clause of the constitution, or do you believe it is already flexible enough?

The new rules provide absolutely no context for the word "reasonable." One person's "reasonable" can be another person's unreasonable, and depending on one's insular point of view, years could be "reasonable." It is too vague in its current form to be of any use.

As to standing, the Legal Code could easily be used to defined "affected." Many of us are dissatisfied with the narrow way the Court has recently defined the word for purposes of review, and at a minimum, I believe that, for instance, members of the R.A. should have standing when the subject of review is a provision of law or the subject of potential legislation, and as another for instance, the appropriate members of the Delegate's government should have standing even though the action under review many not directly affect them, and as a third for instance, that members of the Security Council should have standing whenever the subject involves regional security, even though an action of the Security Council may not be directly affected. I'm willing to see if the Court will adjust its too narrow definition through an addition to the Court rules, but if not, I'm more than prepared to ask the R.A. to take up the job.

 

[Romanoffia]

Grosseschnauzer has my vote.

 

[SillyString]

I'm willing to see if the Court will adjust its too narrow definition through an addition to the Court rules

Is it your stance that the Court can ignore its own rulings?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

A new court rule changes what the law is, and as I said, we can go the legal code route if need be. If the R.A. chooses to elect me to the Court on a reform platform, that will be a mandate for the other Justices to consider in addressing reform of its procedures and rules.
Courts can reconsider and withdraw from previous conclusions when those conclusions are wrong, and interpreting too broadly or narrowly can be a "wrong." The style of judicial drafting used these days by the Court often obscures how the Court gets to point B from point A, and thus leave plenty of room for reasoning that is arbitrary and capable of a wrong conclusion.

 

[punk d]

I will likely support your candidacy. The court needs balance and I believe you will bring that to the bench.

 

[Eluvatar]

A new court rule changes what the law is, and as I said, we can go the legal code route if need be. If the R.A. chooses to elect me to the Court on a reform platform, that will be a mandate for the other Justices to consider in addressing reform of its procedures and rules.
Courts can reconsider and withdraw from previous conclusions when those conclusions are wrong, and interpreting too broadly or narrowly can be a "wrong." The style of judicial drafting used these days by the Court often obscures how the Court gets to point B from point A, and thus leave plenty of room for reasoning that is arbitrary and capable of a wrong conclusion.

I believe SillyString was obliquely referring to this ruling on the meaning of "affected party". While yes the Court could overturn its precedent, this is generally viewed as inappropriate. Do you believe that ruling conflicts with the loosening of the rules you would like to see?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

A new court rule changes what the law is, and as I said, we can go the legal code route if need be. If the R.A. chooses to elect me to the Court on a reform platform, that will be a mandate for the other Justices to consider in addressing reform of its procedures and rules.
Courts can reconsider and withdraw from previous conclusions when those conclusions are wrong, and interpreting too broadly or narrowly can be a "wrong." The style of judicial drafting used these days by the Court often obscures how the Court gets to point B from point A, and thus leave plenty of room for reasoning that is arbitrary and capable of a wrong conclusion.

I believe SillyString was obliquely referring to this ruling on the meaning of "affected party". While yes the Court could overturn its precedent, this is generally viewed as inappropriate. Do you believe that ruling conflicts with the loosening of the rules you would like to see?

Overruling an incorrect precedent is never "wrong" or "inappropriate." It is the system correcting a wrong. And a law defining "affected" has the same effect. Either way, the problem can be corrected.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

I like the idea of an appeals court. And have been thinking about it myself for awhile. It would add some more realism to our RP. How would you approach the issue? Would we have two seperate justice elections? One for the normal criminal/request for review court and a seperate election for Appeals Justices? Or should they be appointed somehow?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

My thought, as I described it some time ago when the current constitution was being drafted, is to basically elect four justices, and they would be divided into one justice as the trial justice for a particular criminal case and the other three justices would be the appeals court for that particular case. The roles would rotate for each new criminal case.

As to the review proceedings, it would probably rotate either as a panel of three of the four, with no appeal, or follow the criminal case format.

As an interim step, the Court could utilize temporary hearing officers as trial judges with the justices serving as the appeals panel as a test to work out any quirks in the system in the short term. That would make it easier to identify what Court rules, legal code provisions, and constitutional provisions will need amendment to permanently implement this system.

 

[SillyString]

Overruling an incorrect precedent is never "wrong" or "inappropriate." It is the system correcting a wrong.

So as a followup on this, do you think it is appropriate for the court to voluntarily revisit its previous decisions, without any request being filed by another party?

If so, can you provide your thoughts on what power, if any, is held within precedent?

 

[Flemingovia]

Overruling an incorrect precedent is never "wrong" or "inappropriate." It is the system correcting a wrong. And a law defining "affected" has the same effect. Either way, the problem can be corrected.

the definition of "wrong" is just as nebulous and subjective as the definition of the word "reasonable", which you criticize above.

if every new bench spends its time going over and overruling decisions of the previous incumbents that they consider incorrect, then the court will make even less progress than before.

And any improvements to the rules you DID manage to achieve would be subject to the whim of the next incumbents.

You have always come across to me as very, very keen to cite and insist on precedent when it suits you... but when it does not, the precedent is "wrong".

Is this not inconsistent of you?

 

[Chasmanthe]

Overruling an incorrect precedent is never "wrong" or "inappropriate." It is the system correcting a wrong. And a law defining "affected" has the same effect. Either way, the problem can be corrected.

the definition of "wrong" is just as nebulous and subjective as the definition of the word "reasonable", which you criticize above.

if every new bench spends its time going over and overruling decisions of the previous incumbents that they consider incorrect, then the court will make even less progress than before.

And any improvements to the rules you DID manage to achieve would be subject to the whim of the next incumbents.

You have always come across to me as very, very keen to cite and insist on precedent when it suits you... but when it does not, the precedent is "wrong".

Is this not inconsistent of you?

I was not expecting this inconsistency.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Flem, see those quotation marks around the word "wrong" (as I just did here)? I was referring to a concept in discussing a principle and not a specific reference, circumstance, action, decision, etc. I'm not sure citing anything specific is even pertinent to that issue of discussion at the moment.

As to Silly's silly question, that is putting the cart before the horse, is it not? Is there anything that prevents the Court from deciding to revisit an issue? Is there anything preventing the Court from inviting a request to revisit an issue? Is there anything prevent a justice on the Court from doing either of these things especially since the mere action of an invitation does not amount to a decision? And either could be done in the Regional Assembly or elsewhere without violating anything. In other words, if Silly String could file a brief in a review proceeding in the Court while not only serving as a member of the Court but as one of the participants to the decision involved, then as to the question of whether the Court could initiate a reconsideration of a review decision seems to be a non-issue actually. Show me where the Court by its own rules cannot do so, any more than where the Court in the rules allows a sitting Justice to file such a brief in a matter in which they are participating as a Justice?

And Flem, I have no control over and did not invite Roman to make any statement whatsoever in this thread. In fact, you will find I have tried to stay out of the Roman debate(s) except as an admin because as an admin we are having to monitor and review his ongoing behavior. And I have to wonder if your post above is more in response to the act of Roman posting in this thread than as to anything I'm saying about the Court as a candidate.

 

[Flemingovia]

And Flem, I have no control over and did not invite Roman to make any statement whatsoever in this thread. In fact, you will find I have tried to stay out of the Roman debate(s) except as an admin because as an admin we are having to monitor and review his ongoing behavior. And I have to wonder if your post above is more in response to the act of Roman posting in this thread than as to anything I'm saying about the Court as a candidate.

I did not mention Romanoffia at all. Romanoffia has never assumed as much significance in my thinking as he has in his own ego. When I posted I was only thinking about what you were posting in your candidate thread.

i still see an inconsistency in your thinking which you obviously do not observe yourself. It must be nice to be so self-assured.

 

[SillyString]

Is there anything that prevents the Court from deciding to revisit an issue? Is there anything preventing the Court from inviting a request to revisit an issue? Is there anything prevent a justice on the Court from doing either of these things especially since the mere action of an invitation does not amount to a decision?

It is my assertion that any of these things are a gross misuse of judicial power. The court is, and always should be, a reactive body. It is not ever appropriate for the Court to initiate a trial proceeding, or to take it upon itself to review a law, government policy, government action, or its own previous decisions. The Court has immense power to define what is legal - that power must be constrained by only responding to external requests.

You appear to be asserting that the Court has the authority to swing its power around at will - to haul government officials in front of it and demand answers, to voluntarily chop down popular laws just because it doesn't like them - taken to its logical extreme, even to invent charges against people and insist that they be tried.

You are arguing for a proactive court - do you truly believe in this? And if so, I again ask you to please clarify when exactly precedent holds power and when it can be ignored at will?

In other words, if Silly String could file a brief in a review proceeding in the Court while not only serving as a member of the Court but as one of the participants to the decision involved, then as to the question of whether the Court could initiate a reconsideration of a review decision seems to be a non-issue actually. Show me where the Court by its own rules cannot do so, any more than where the Court in the rules allows a sitting Justice to file such a brief in a matter in which they are participating as a Justice?

Please cite any case wherein I filed a brief while I was serving as a Justice. Please exclude from your citation any case wherein I filed a brief before I was elected justice, thereby giving RA members a heads up as to my stance on that particular issue before they voted for me, and particularly any such case where the verdict that was rendered was agreed upon by the previous court but never got around to being written/published.

Thanks for backing up your baseless claims!

 

[r3naissanc3r]

As to Silly's silly question, that is putting the cart before the horse, is it not? Is there anything that prevents the Court from deciding to revisit an issue? Is there anything preventing the Court from inviting a request to revisit an issue? Is there anything prevent a justice on the Court from doing either of these things especially since the mere action of an invitation does not amount to a decision?

I sincerely hope that you are just asking these questions as hypotheticals, and you are not actually advocating that the Court and Justices take such actions.

 

[Mall]

If he can be respectful, then there won't be any problems on the Court.

Since you have admitted here that there will certainly be problems with having both you and Wolf on the court, what do you think is going to happen when there is another explosion?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

As to Silly's silly question, that is putting the cart before the horse, is it not? Is there anything that prevents the Court from deciding to revisit an issue? Is there anything preventing the Court from inviting a request to revisit an issue? Is there anything prevent a justice on the Court from doing either of these things especially since the mere action of an invitation does not amount to a decision?

I sincerely hope that you are just asking these questions as hypotheticals, and you are not actually advocating that the Court and Justices take such actions.

I'm just pointing out the insular bubble the Court has gotten itself into.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

If he can be respectful, then there won't be any problems on the Court.

Since you have admitted here that there will certainly be problems with having both you and Wolf on the court, what do you think is going to happen when there is another explosion?

I think your question is better directed at him, not me. It won't be me starting anything.

And if I disagree with a majority, then I am perfectly prepared to take on the mantle of Justice William O. Douglas.

 

[SillyString]

I'm still hoping for answers to my questions.

 

[punk d]

The above discussion is why I am voting for Grosse. I trust Grosse to conduct himself with decorum, in judicial matters, when there is disagreement. I feel a court with balanced thought processes serves justice within TNP well because no one thought perspective will dominate.