Punk D and Justice for all

[punk d]

Greetings fellow TNPers!

I would like to stand for the position of Justice of TNP. I have been a Justice before and I was Chief Justice for a time. I recall, during a rare moment when I was on IRC, speaking to BW and telling him of my desire to be a Justice. A little while later I had the opportunity to do so.

The court back then, in my opinion, was fractured by the personalities therein. Today's court seems less egotistical and more in line with common sense. I think we still have issues with our system, but it's not - imo - with the people running the Courts.

I like the position of Justice more than any other. I believe I am fair, have a decent understanding of the law, but probably what sets me apart is I have no affinity towards interpreting anything other than what I think the law says. Let me put it this way, sure I might want Ministers elected but if the law says the delegate has the authority to, I would vote to affirm existing law despite my personal preferences.

The thing within the courts that I'd like to see more of is, more deliberation. I know, you're saying to yourself it takes weeks sometimes to get questions answered and you're right, but the amount of actual deliberation posts during that time is typically sparse. I don't know if that is the case recently, but back in the day, it was and I think that made for a less effectual court. I hope that if elected I could work with my fellow justices to really dissect a review attacking it from multiple angles to craft the most correct opinion on the matter.

So why run now?
The simple answer is I'm almost finished my Master's in Accounting. Huzzah! Also, the job I started last year which has sucked much of my time is getting a lot better and I just hired two more peeps who will join the team this month. I foresee getting more time back.

Additionally, I'm curious what people believe are the issues facing today's court. Even if I lose it will be nice to discuss those topics and aide whomever wins this election.

I look forward to your questions and hope that I can help you make an informed decision on our next justices!!

P to the D

 

[falapatorius]

Additionally, I'm curious what people believe are the issues facing today's court.

The one issue that repeatedly shows up is the 'affected party' precedent. As a member of the Court for that particular ruling , you were part of the discussion on that matter. In particular:

The Court opines that an affected party, with respect to one's the ability to request judicial review, is someone who reasonably perceives that their rights have been infringed through action or inaction undertaken by a governmental body or bodies. An affected party also include those affected, adversely or otherwise, by laws passed by the regional assembly and policies enacted by the executive and judicial branches of government.

The bolded language here was vague. Was that deliberate? As per the Constitution:

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.

As a TNP citizen, I am bound by, and protected by the Constitution. If I felt a gov't policy or Law was unconstitutional, does this ruling support my asking for a R4R on the matter? We've seen many R4Rs denied for a lack of standing on the part of the petitioner for not being an 'affected party'. Does a citizen in this instance qualify as an affected party? One could argue that any policy/Law that is unconstitutional 'affects' all of us:

14. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.

I'm not asking for a in-depth examination of the ruling, just some guidance on how to interpret it.

Thank you, and good luck.

 

[punk d]

Thanks for the question, falap.

First, let me say that I proscribe to a liberal interpretation of "affected" party. I do not believe that 'affected' should be restricted much at all. For instance, if someone sees an RA member's right being undermined, I consider that person affected because threats to one are threats to all.

Take, for example, BW's recent queries to the court one of which I believe was denied because he was not "affected" as defined by the current court. I think that runs counter to the spirit of the ruling in question and I for one can attest I liked the vaguery because I deliberately wanted people to have standing and not get shut down simply because they weren't directly affected in a particular case but certainly could be affected by future cases in which the same process/policy/practice occurred.

Two years ago, affected party was something that was debated ad nauseum and many people who are of the more conservative interpretation definitely didn't like this ruling. But for me, I believe that undermining one RA members' rights undermines all of ours.

As Justice I hope to work with my fellow justices so that we can take a more liberal approach to "affected" party which is in line with the spirit of this ruling.

At the end of the day, TNP is not a legal playground and we need to use more common sense and less legaleze when tackling issues facing our region.

 

[SillyString]

Take, for example, BW's recent queries to the court one of which I believe was denied because he was not "affected" as defined by the current court. I think that runs counter to the spirit of the ruling in question and I for one can attest I liked the vaguery because I deliberately wanted people to have standing and not get shut down simply because they weren't directly affected in a particular case but certainly could be affected by future cases in which the same process/policy/practice occurred.

As one of the justices on the court at the time the ruling was issued, and according to the discussion thread primarily responsible for the final version of the ruling as given, I have to point out that it was largely your choice of words and phrasing that has caused the problems we see with its interpretation. The wording is pretty explicit: it outright requires petitioners to lay out either the rights of theirs that have been violated, or the laws that have been broken, and clearly specify how they are personally, not hypothetically, affected.

The two rulings I would probably call the worst-written on record are the ruling on Affected Party and the ruling on Government Officials - both of which you wrote. In the latter, in fact, you went so far as to encourage people to file more requests for review so that you could rule on other issues you wanted to address, something which is entirely inappropriate for the Court as a body to do. It utterly violates both its neutrality and its mandate from the Constitution.

Don't get me wrong, I have complaints about the justices who went along with your rulings as well, but ultimately my largest complaint with your prior service on the court is exactly this issue. I don't think you reason badly and I don't think you necessarily have incorrect opinions, but in my experience the rulings you draft are not very well written.

This isn't really a question, so I don't know if you can address it at all, but it is my chief concern about voting for you in this election.

 

[punk d]

This [affected party] was written by Abbey, Silly. Sanc and I concurred with the wording. Gov officials i had a much larger writing role. Just clarifying your point. I tend to be more wordy than the affected party ruling.

I've stated my opinion on this one and I like the affected party ruling quite a bit. I don't like how the courts have interpreted it. As I said, I like common sense and common sense dictates that people (RA members) should be able to challenge or rather ask for clarification on points of law if they feel those laws affect them. I am unconcerned with direct or indirect affectation.

You and I have fundamental disagreements on law. That is unlikely to change.

 

[falapatorius]

Thanks for answering the question.

 

[punk d]

Otra preguntas?

 

[Gracius Maximus]

It seems to be a quiet weekend.

 

[Flemingovia]

Not really a question, but it is interesting that we have very differing thinking when it comes to "affected parties". it will be interesting to see which the electorate warm to (if indeed they notice at all).

 

[punk d]

Not really a question, but it is interesting that we have very differing thinking when it comes to "affected parties". it will be interesting to see which the electorate warm to (if indeed they notice at all).

I think so. And my main point is common sense. I doubt if you and I were on the bench we wouldn't have spirited (and productive) discussions on the subject of 'affected party' but I do think that the courts since the ruling have really taken too hard a line.

I get sometimes people just throw things out there to see if it sticks, but I also think the justices have a responsibility, just like other roles, to be responsive to the needs of the people. That sounds cheesy and it is, but it is what I hope to achieve.

 

[Flemingovia]

Looking back over the Requests for review that have been denied since that ruling, most of them fall under the category of shit-stirring rather than genuine legal inquiry.