Discussion: R4R on court ruling 1.1

Crushing Our Enemies

Crushing Our Enemies

TNPer
-
-
Discord
COE#7110
Well, it's been a month since this request for review was accepted. I'm disappointed that it seems like Grosse's RL medical issues seem to be holding up the entire court. Where are DD and Kialga? Can't they also write opinions? Hell, in theory, they could publish a ruling without Grosse even agreeing to it - two out of three is a majority. One wonders also, if Grosse is unable to be active in this matter, why he doesn't allow someone else to take over as moderating justice for him, or recuse himself and appoint a Temporary Hearing Officer.

There are three open matters before the court, and one simple administrative task (adding an old ruling to the records). So far, all the court has done since its election is choose its Chief Justice. Is anyone else a little dissatisfied with the lack of productivity so far?
 
COE:
Is anyone else a little dissatisfied with the lack of productivity so far?
Click to expand...
Not really. I've learned that court requests take as long as they take. :shrug: For all we know, the Court could be finalizing the decisions as we speak. A month isn't the longest time requests for review have taken in the past. I understand your point, but thus far I'm not overly concerned.
 
All things considered, the productivity level is actually good. A quiet Court session is a good Court session. ;)
 
falapatorius:
COE:
Is anyone else a little dissatisfied with the lack of productivity so far?
Click to expand...
Not really. I've learned that court requests take as long as they take. :shrug: For all we know, the Court could be finalizing the decisions as we speak. A month isn't the longest time requests for review have taken in the past. I understand your point, but thus far I'm not overly concerned.
Click to expand...
That just reads like an indictment of the court system. It is a shame that out expectations are so low that the current situation is NOT concerning to some.
 
Flemingovia:
That just reads like an indictment of the court system. It is a shame that out expectations are so low that the current situation is NOT concerning to some.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but it wasn't intended as such. I was responding in the context of the OP:

Silly String:
I therefore request that the Court review this ruling and acknowledge its obsolescence by modifying it with the strikethrough tag. This, I believe, will preserve the historical record and allow future Courts to reference the old ruling while also making clear that it is not current law.
Click to expand...
Not to downplay the importance of any r4r, but this does seem to be more of a housekeeping issue imo (unless the relevant issue referenced in the r4r arises of course).

On the other hand, I'd be more concerned with the time elapsed in regard to my SC removals request for review. But the Court has only been deliberating for about 3-4 days on that (although I'm not completely sure of that, which is why I requested an update).

Anyway, I really don't see the point of complaining about time taken to process requests. I doubt it has ever produced the intended result.
 
falapatorius:
Not to downplay the importance of any r4r, but this does seem to be more of a housekeeping issue imo (unless the relevant issue referenced in the r4r arises of course).
Click to expand...
The length of time this has taken is even more of a worry since, as you say, this is a fairly straightforward housekeeping issue.

The court has only one other request for review on its slate at this time. It is not unreasonable to worry how the court would cope if faced with a tricky trial, or a number of complex issue arising simultaneously.
 
Flemingovia:
The court has only one other request for review on its slate at this time. It is not unreasonable to worry how the court would cope if faced with a tricky trial, or a number of complex issue arising simultaneously.
Click to expand...
No, it's not unreasonable. That could happen. But it's only speculation atm. Besides, there are 3 Justices, so I'm not sure they'd be overwhelmed. If you feel it's taking too long, I'm not going to say you're wrong. I'm just saying I can wait for awhile longer.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Romanoffia:
the productivity level is actually good.
Click to expand...
Zero is good? Are you saying that the court should never do anything?
Click to expand...
What I meant was, the Court is doing just fine in terms of doing their job. The participation of interested parties in various matters is something else. But all things considered, the Court appears to be functioning as well as can be expected given what they have to work with.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I disagree. I would say that so far, they don't appear to be functioning at all.
Click to expand...
I kinda agree. A little bit of activity would show they are at least doing something. No activity, well then people start to ask questions on whats happening.
 
The fact that none of the three justices have deigned to post in this thread so far (they have all been online) is also eloquent.
 
flemingovia:
The fact that none of the three justices have deigned to post in this thread so far (they have all been online) is also eloquent.
Click to expand...

Silence is golden, nicht wahr? :lol:

Crushing Our Enemies:
I disagree. I would say that so far, they don't appear to be functioning at all.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, you could say that too. I would justify my previous comments as displays of facetiousness, but I'd be somewhat inaccurate.

My suggestion is, if the Justices are entirely unresponsive, is to find a legitimate way to quickly appoint THOs (if that is possible with all the Justices apparently on holiday). /irony

There is actually a solution that could be applied with a little stretching (see highly highlighted item):

Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers

4. If there is a vacancy on the Court, or any Justice is unavailable or has a conflict of interest the remaining Justices will promptly appoint a hearing officer to participate as temporary Justices.

5. If no Justices are available or all Justices have a conflict of interest, the Delegate will promptly appoint the needed hearing officers with the agreement of the Speaker.


6. In implementing the previous clause, any person who has a conflict of interest will be treated as absent.

7. Any hearing officer appointed under this Section must not have a conflict of interest and may not hold any other office while serving as a judicial hearing officer.
Click to expand...

Could solve it that way if all of the Justices are sufficiently unavailable. Might ruffle a few feathers if the Delegate did this, but if there were no ruffle feathers in TNP, TNP would not be TNP.




PaulWallLibertarian42:
Recall the bench!

Flem, romanoffia, and the cheese for Justices
Click to expand...

Oh, crap, more special elections?!?! Oh, the huge manatee!

FrH2ZXSb.jpg
 
Flemingovia:
The fact that none of the three justices have deigned to post in this thread so far (they have all been online) is also eloquent.
Click to expand...
Chapter 3: Decorum; Section 1: Judicial Conduct - Adopted Court Rules:
1. Justices are discouraged from posting in the Public Gallery except when making official announcements unrelated to any trial or review.
2. A Moderating Justice is strictly prohibited from posting in any thread in the Public Gallery relating to the issue they are moderating, barring truly exceptional circumstances.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I was actually about to quote that when I saw your post, falap. My opinion of the court would not be bettered by them posting in this thread - quite the opposite.

What I would like to see is them posting in requests for review.
 
If I remember rightly, the rules on Decorum only needed to be introduced after Roman's conduct the last time he was Justice. I am not talking about anything like that. I am talking about a simple "don't panic, folks - we are onto this"

Part of good official conduct is maintaining communication. Interpreting the ruled to say that Justices go into purdah while a hearing or review is taking place is, I think, not the way things ought to be.

And if the court rules have created that, then they need looking at.
 
I would also add that this is not a peanut gallery commenting on a trial - it is a thread directly relating to the conduct and activity of the justices. to deny the justices the chance to explain or justify their conduct has the danger of turning it into a lynch mob.
 
Tomb:
Well, DD, is no longer Chief Justice anymore:
Click to expand...
:facepalm:

Flemingovia:
I would also add that this is not a peanut gallery commenting on a trial - it is a thread directly relating to the conduct and activity of the justices. to deny the justices the chance to explain or justify their conduct has the danger of turning it into a lynch mob.
Click to expand...
They would post in the relevant thread if they felt their conduct needed explaining or justifying.

Flemingovia:
If I remember rightly, the rules on Decorum only needed to be introduced after Roman's conduct the last time he was Justice. I am not talking about anything like that. I am talking about a simple "don't panic, folks - we are onto this"

Part of good official conduct is maintaining communication. Interpreting the ruled to say that Justices go into purdah while a hearing or review is taking place is, I think, not the way things ought to be.

And if the court rules have created that, then they need looking at.
Click to expand...
Well, we could look at them all we want but:

Line 1 of Adopted Court Rules:
These rules are established by the Court and are binding on all matters brought before it. Amendments to this document may be passed by a majority vote of the Justices.
Click to expand...
Even if Justices weren't prohibited from doing it, I think commenting on an ongoing review in a public gallery thread would be inappropriate. The petitioner(s) themselves can ask for an update on the status of a proceeding if they so desire. By all means, express your dissatisfaction. I'd be interested to see if it compels the Court in any way, shape, or form.
 
What were we just talking about, again? Oh yeah, I remember:
Court Rules:
2. A Moderating Justice is strictly prohibited from posting in any thread in the Public Gallery relating to the issue they are moderating, barring truly exceptional circumstances.
Click to expand...
:facepalm:
 
When there's a vacancy in the court, it's the duty of the court to appoint a THO promptly. I sincerely hope that the court will not be waiting until the conclusion of a special election to proceed on any of its business.
 
I think Justices have ample opportunity to justify or explain themselves in the courtroom - that is the setting for the bench to dialogue with the public. This is the setting for talking about the court.
 
matters seem to have ground to a halt, for better or for worse.

Who would have thought that a matter so simple could have become so complicated.

Makes you wish there was a better system out there, doesn't it? Frequently I Question Here, but few answers.
 
flemingovia:
matters seem to have ground to a halt, for better or for worse.

Who would have thought that a matter so simple could have become so complicated.

Makes you wish there was a better system out there, doesn't it? Frequently I Question Here, but few answers.
Click to expand...
I hate to admit it, but I am beginning to agree with you on this exact point, albeit only in certain specific cases which would call for a Fiqh format approach.
 
Romanoffia:
flemingovia:
matters seem to have ground to a halt, for better or for worse.

Who would have thought that a matter so simple could have become so complicated.

Makes you wish there was a better system out there, doesn't it? Frequently I Question Here, but few answers.
Click to expand...
I hate to admit it, but I am beginning to agree with you on this exact point, albeit only in certain specific cases which would call for a Fiqh format approach.
Click to expand...
I am not sure there are certain cases which are better suited to the fiqh. I think rather there are certain benches which are better suited to getting things done.

Under the current bench, the fiqh may be preferable.
 
Look at the bright side - if the Court actually acted quickly, they would have probably gotten massacred by public opinion for actually doing their job.

As I have noted elsewhere - increase the number of justices so that at least three are always available at any given time. Of course, that's such a simple and efficient solution no one will ever even consider it.

Or we could just create some kind of virtual trial by ordeal and have done with it.
 
Romanoffia:
As I have noted elsewhere - increase the number of justices so that at least three are always available at any given time. Of course, that's such a simple and efficient solution no one will ever even consider it.
Click to expand...
Or we could let the Court work at it's own pace (glacial as it may be in some instances). If the armchair Justices want speedy decisions, then run in the next election. Show us all how to render fair, legally sound, and timely decisions.

Increasing the number of Justices may seem like a simple solution, but only in theory. Constant public pressure (and downright disrespect in some cases.. imo) could have a chilling effect on those who aspire to the position. It may get to the point where it'll be hard to fill the Court chairs with anyone that isn't Silly String. :P

Anyway, it seems a decision on this matter is on the horizon (from what the CJ posted in the Court thread).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top