Reelect Plemby

plembobria

plembobria

TNPer
-
-
Hiya! It's me again. Running for reelection. Seeking power!

I can't boast about my record this term, because there was only one case. ([me] feels the heat.) On the subject of the R4R ruling this term.* It made a point. One that I agreed with endorsed. Now I understand that it didn't sit well with many people. So I will say this: I will refuse to endorse such rulings henceforth.

Moving on. I'm active!!! And activity is good for justices, as is legal competence. I've learned quite a bit over my term-and-half, and I think I'm adequate to continue serving at least for another four months. But that, folks, is up to you.

Any questions may be posted in this thread.

*Please do not turn this thread into a debate about this.
 
The way you phrase the fact you no longer support R4Rs does not sit well with me. To ask you to clarify, are you not endorsing them because you've had a change of heart, or because you realize we can boot you out of the seat as we please?
 
mcmasterdonia:
Woohooo Plemby 4 all the Jemby!

What is jemby?
Click to expand...
Jemby is that thing. Justice. Except it rhymes.

Bootsie:
The way you phrase the fact you no longer support R4Rs does not sit well with me. To ask you to clarify, are you not endorsing them because you've had a change of heart, or because you realize we can boot you out of the seat as we please?
Click to expand...
I didn't say I no longer support R4R's. I said "I will no longer endorse such rulings," referring to the most recent ruling issued by Flem and me.

The reason for this is that the point it conveys does not sit well with the public, and empirically fails to settle legal matters. However on the subject of "booting me out of office." I find it improper for justices to pander to popular opinion against sound rulings. You will see none of that from me.
 
plembobria:
It made a point. One that I agreed with endorsed. Now I understand that it didn't sit well with many people. So I will say this: I will refuse to endorse such rulings henceforth.
Click to expand...
The reason for this is that the point it conveys does not sit well with the public,
Click to expand...

I read this to mean that in future you will make all judgements with an eye as to how it will be received in the public galleries, and will refuse to endorse any judgement that might come in for some criticism.

Personally, that is not what i want or expect from a justice. have you no spine, man?
 
Thank you for being willing to stand for one of the most thankless jobs here in TNP.

I have a couple of questions (that I will be posing to all Justice candidates):

1. What is your legal opinion of the last criminal trial held before the Court?
2. What is (at least) one thing from the ruling and/or process that you agree with?
3. What is (at least) one thing from the ruling and/or process that you disagree with?

Thank you.
 
flemingovia:
plembobria:
It made a point. One that I agreed with endorsed. Now I understand that it didn't sit well with many people. So I will say this: I will refuse to endorse such rulings henceforth.
Click to expand...
The reason for this is that the point it conveys does not sit well with the public,
Click to expand...

I read this to mean that in future you will make all judgements with an eye as to how it will be received in the public galleries, and will refuse to endorse any judgement that might come in for some criticism.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. I am quiet capable of handling criticism, and that has been proven during my term as justice. (Especially during TNP v. Tomb.)

My point is that the people fail to understand that the jocular format of the ruling is intended to convey a certain sentiment, and thus branded it as, "immature" or "rude." My point is that it causes plenty of unnecessary strife. I wish it did not. But it did. This is not to say that rulings will not (or should not) create strife, however, if extra strife can be avoided, it should, and that is the idea at hand here.

However, as I said before, I will not be pandering to public opinion with my rulings or legal opinions.

Gracius Maximus:
Thank you for being willing to stand for one of the most thankless jobs here in TNP.

I have a couple of questions (that I will be posing to all Justice candidates):

1. What is your legal opinion of the last criminal trial held before the Court?
2. What is (at least) one thing from the ruling and/or process that you agree with?
3. What is (at least) one thing from the ruling and/or process that you disagree with?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Are you making me opine my own work? Cruel! :shakefist:

1. I think that the legal opinion is correct. That is, a violation of the BoR, and therefore gross misconduct.
2. I think Justice Plembobria could have managed the deposition better. It is regrettable that no defense was given but the Moderating Justice on the case is not responsible for that.
3. Frankly, I would have prefered the issue be handled by R4R, but the law says that BoR violations are a crime, and as justices we must rule on the matters before us according to law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top