A suggestion regarding TNP judicial elections

COE:
In what universe does it make sense for the AG (who is in charge of prosecuting those accused of a crime) to appoint the chief justice, and by extension, the entire court?
Click to expand...
The Mall/JAL continuum. :rofl:
 
@COE- Oh, ok. I thought the AG ran the courts as a sort of Minister. Never mind then; perhaps the Chief Justice can be appointed by the Delegate? Kind of like how the President appoints Justices in the US.
 
That's a thought. The process would need RA approval though, in an ongoing fashion. Perhaps, as is done in some states of the US, a ballot question could be placed on each election asking whether the voter things Justice A should stay on the bench. I haven't given much thought to what majority of the RA should be required to confirm a delegate appointment, or remove through referendum, but that idea has occurred to me before.
 
Syrixia:
david_:
I guess this is why IRL most judges are appointed. It would be hell trying to elect them!
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think we should have the Chief Justice appoint our judges, and the Attorney-General appoint the Chief Justice. That could work.
Click to expand...
I've got an even better idea -

The Delegate appoints Court Justices who then serve as long as they want or until the fail to show up. The appointees would then be subjected to RA approval. That way, the Justices would be not subjected to political considerations (like making 'popular' decisions) in order to keep their seats.
 
Or just do away with the judical system all together and have the Delegate maintain his own group of loyal stasi. And take people out back behind the cabinet chambers to ya know, never be seen again. It could work. Totally.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Or just do away with the judical system all together and have the Delegate maintain his own group of loyal stasi. And take people out back behind the cabinet chambers to ya know, never be seen again. It could work. Totally.
Click to expand...
Well it couldn't be much worse than this bureaucratic nightmare we have! /sarcasm

Seriously though, elections and justice do not mix. I would much rather have a competent scholar than a not-so-competent "pop star" to carry out "justice." The only voting in the entire system should be to confirm appointees.
 
This debate has drifted off far away from where we started. My opinion on the issue is that we should leave the judicial system as it is. I have not seen any suggestion that really seems to be a solution or an “improvement” to the judicial system that’s worth having the RA vote on it. If anything, having the Delegate nominate justices, etc, will only cause more inconvenience in the long run.
However, I do like the idea of giving out a test. I do suggest that if we were to give out a test, it should actually be given to the candidates before the elections so that voters can see the level of knowledge of each candidate in the judicial before voting. Having three people write off the test is not something I would recommend. This test will and could eventually sway the voters’ decisions. Therefore, a test with that amount of influence should be written by several people (more than three) that specifically have had previous experience in the judicial department. This is my opinion on this for now.


~ Tomb
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Or just do away with the judical system all together and have the Delegate maintain his own group of loyal stasi. And take people out back behind the cabinet chambers to ya know, never be seen again. It could work. Totally.
Click to expand...


Better yet - just have the prosecution present a case to the RA, the Defence present a rebuttal and case to the RA and hold a vote. Mob rule without the trappings of a judicial system. ;)


The Democratic Republic of Tomb:
This debate has drifted off far away from where we started. My opinion on the issue is that we should leave the judicial system as it is. I have not seen any suggestion that really seems to be a solution or an “improvement” to the judicial system that’s worth having the RA vote on it. If anything, having the Delegate nominate justices, etc, will only cause more inconvenience in the long run.
However, I do like the idea of giving out a test. I do suggest that if we were to give out a test, it should actually be given to the candidates before the elections so that voters can see the level of knowledge of each candidate in the judicial before voting. Having three people write off the test is not something I would recommend. This test will and could eventually sway the voters’ decisions. Therefore, a test with that amount of influence should be written by several people (more than three) that specifically have had previous experience in the judicial department. This is my opinion on this for now.


~ Tomb
Click to expand...

No, here's the problem with the Judicial system: Candidates that get elected to sit on the Court and then vanish into thin air when it comes time to put the rubber to the road.

All this talk about bar exams and qualification tests is utter BS. The real problem is that some of those elected to be Justices just never show up to do the job. A failure to be active is the root of the problem.

What I suggest is that anyone running for any office, judicial or otherwise, have a proven track record of activity on the forum here. That would solve the problem, not bar exams nor legal requirements for delivering McJustice at the drive-through window.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top