Zyvetskistaahn for Justice

Zyvetskistaahn

TNPer
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Zyvetskistaahn
Discord
zyvet.
[me] for Justice​

Hello, I'm Zyvetskistaahn and I'm running for the office of Justice. I ran in the previous Judicial election and was elected then but this has been a quiet term for the Court so, in essence, my campaign this time is as it was last time: I have experience interpreting TNP's laws and rules as Speaker, in dealing with business in the Assembly itself and in administering citizenship; and I have experience in particular interpreting election law, having previously served as Election Commission, on an appointed and an ex officio basis. This latter point is, perhaps, of less strength now, as the law on elections has been substantially reformed, however, I think that the fundamentals of the law on elections and of how one is to go about interpreting it are durable enough to remain of relevance.

Beyond that, I would happily answer any questions.
 
You have my full support!

One question, what cases have you worked on?
 
abc:
You have my full support!

One question, what cases have you worked on?
As a Justice, none, as none have been brought while I've been on the Court. I've submitted briefs in relation to a couple of requests for review in my time as Speaker/a candidate for election, here (Election Commissioner Oaths) and here (Speaker's Power to End Debate).
 
I never got around to declaring it here during candidacy declarations, but you have my support.
 
How familiar are you with the 50 or so court reviews to date? Are there any you particularly disagree with, or particularly admire?

EDIT: Also, will you stand for chief justice if you are elected?
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
How familiar are you with the 50 or so court reviews to date? Are there any you particularly disagree with, or particularly admire?

EDIT: Also, will you stand for chief justice if you are elected?
I think I am fairly familiar with all the reviews, I've read them all a few times. There are some which I am more familiar with than others, due to personal involvement in them or them having been relevant to previous offices.

I think that I like the second review of the Speaker's power to end debate particularly. It built on the first review well in identifying relevant considerations for the exercise of the power and is clear and well written (I also happen to agree with the conclusion the Court reached).

There are a few reviews I dislike. Most uncontroversially there is the review on the suppression of RMB posts for reasons which I should think are self-evident.

Slightly more controversially there is the review on the definition of government officials, which I found was presented in a poor manner and which had seemed to reach conclusions without exploring the reasons for them (though I will say that I largely agreed with the conclusions the Court reached).

Those two, I think, stand out the most, in terms of disagreeable reviews.

At this time, it is my intention to seek selection as Chief Justice.
 
Back
Top