- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- Zyvet#9958
This thread is to record the deliberations of the Court in relation to the request for review relating to the RA's power to declare emergency situations, the thread for which can be found here.
At the moment, the request has been denied as the petitioner has been found to lack standing. The Court's discussion prior to that denial is in the logs below.
At the moment, the request has been denied as the petitioner has been found to lack standing. The Court's discussion prior to that denial is in the logs below.
27 November 2017
[4:39 PM] Scorch: Seems we have an r4r
[5:26 PM] Bootsie: Is it something we want to accept?
[6:31 PM] Zyvet: Oh, I thought it was going to be Mall but it isn't
[6:31 PM] Zyvet: <.<
[6:31 PM] Zyvet: I'll have a look shortly
[6:31 PM] Bootsie: Nah, it's Clean Land.
[6:39 PM] Zyvet: I don't see that there is standing
[6:41 PM] Zyvet: There is no right to have a particular majority on a particular vote, one would need to link a substantive rights violation to the supposed procedural flaw
[6:50 PM] Scorch: I agree.
[7:00 PM] Zyvet: I can see that there may be an argument to be made in connection with the right to freedom of religion or speech, given the measures prescribed by the proposed motions, but it would seem to me that that argument would only really be open to those affected directly (government officials); a tangential argument that the right of freedom of religion might also be possible, arguing that a government endorsement of Christmas violates the right indirectly, but that seems to me to be quite weak, particularly considering that there is no prohibition on recognition of religion of the kind one might find in other NS or RL analogous rights. But in any event, that has not been argued by the petitioner
[7:02 PM] Zyvet: Perhaps invite them to elaborate rather than dismissing it outright just yet?
[7:32 PM] Scorch: Would Clean Land have to resubmit the request to do that?
[7:37 PM] Zyvet: Not so long as the request is not dismissed, previous courts have asked for elaboration before making a decision as to accepting or dismissing a request
[7:38 PM] Scorch: OK. I'm on board with asking for elaboration.
[7:44 PM] Zyvet: @Bootsie, would you accept or deny the review at the moment; do you wish for elaboration from Clean Land?
[9:15 PM] Bootsie: I'm good with elaboration.
[9:16 PM] Bootsie: This seems like it has potential.
28 November 2017
[12:18 AM] Zyvet: So, there has been elaboration.
I'm not sure that my view is changed too much by it, the fact that the law theoretically does something doesn't mean that they are an affected party now; standing requires some extant or imminent breach, the notionally possible breach put forward by the petitioner is not sufficient to demonstrate a clear connection between an action and a breach, in my view. In essence, the petitioner's claim to standing in on this basis is open to all residents at all times, even where the powers contained in s9.1 are not being exercised, and does not establish why they, particularly, are affected now.
The claim in relation to clause 1 of the BoR seems to go nowhere, as the effects of the proposed motion apply only to officials, not to the petitioner.
It looks like all that is really left is the article 9 Consty argument, which I'm quite sceptical of, in terms of whether it contains a substantive right rather than just powers and procedure with which to exercise them. I may have to think about this one, but at the moment I lean towards dismissal.(edited)
[12:37 AM] Zyvet: I'm going to sleep now, do remember that accepting a r4r only requires one Justice, so if either of you think that there is standing, you can accept it (though that will make you the moderating justice under the court rules); if this is done, be sure to state what the brief submission period is (usually 5 days) and use a (time=) code to indicate when it would end. If one of you wants to accept but not be the moderating justice, then indicate that here and I'll accept it when I wake up.
Any of us can also deny the request on our own too, but I think that denials should generally be done with a consensus behind them, as they are actually open to appeal.
[1:52 AM] Scorch: I also feel that Clean Land's elaboration has not changed my position much. The petitioner presented nothing that showed that this motion in the RA causes a breach. The article 9 consty argument in particular doesn't seem to actually provide any legitimate standing as there seem to be no rights listed in article 9.
[1:53 AM] Scorch: I think that we should dismiss this r4r.
[1:53 AM] Scorch: What do you think @Bootsie ?
[2:24 AM] Bootsie: I'm also in favor of the dismissal seeing the elaboration now.
[2:25 AM] Scorch: Alright. Since we all currently agree I think we can dismiss it now.
[2:26 AM] Scorch: @Bootsie do you want to do it or should I do it?
[2:41 AM] Bootsie: I can.
[2:41 AM] Scorch: Ok.
[2:42 AM] Bootsie: I mean, does it have to be complex, or just "The Court has decided to dismiss this Request for Review"?
[2:42 AM] Bootsie: I guess I should mention because there is no standing.
[2:43 AM] Scorch: I would give some basic reasoning.
[2:43 AM] Scorch: Like no standing.
[2:47 AM] Bootsie: "The Court has decided to dismiss this request because the proposer does not have standing"?
[2:47 AM] Bootsie: That sounds worse.
[2:47 AM] Bootsie: I'm so formal...
[3:35 AM] Bootsie: Sound good?
[3:36 AM] Scorch: What you wrote up there?
[3:36 AM] Bootsie: Yes, or is that worse?
[3:38 AM] Scorch: I would change proposer to petitioner.
[3:38 AM] Bootsie: But otherwise good?
[3:39 AM] Scorch: Maybe say request for review instead of just request but I think either way works.
[3:39 AM] Scorch: That's it:stuck_out_tongue:
[3:41 AM] Bootsie: Sorry, just want to get the details right.
[3:43 AM] Scorch: It's all good. I would be doing the same thing.
[3:54 AM] Scorch: If the petitioner decides to appeal the decision, I would suggest we give more reasoning as to why we came up with our final decision.
[4:00 AM] Bootsie: Aye.
[4:39 PM] Scorch: Seems we have an r4r
[5:26 PM] Bootsie: Is it something we want to accept?
[6:31 PM] Zyvet: Oh, I thought it was going to be Mall but it isn't
[6:31 PM] Zyvet: <.<
[6:31 PM] Zyvet: I'll have a look shortly
[6:31 PM] Bootsie: Nah, it's Clean Land.
[6:39 PM] Zyvet: I don't see that there is standing
[6:41 PM] Zyvet: There is no right to have a particular majority on a particular vote, one would need to link a substantive rights violation to the supposed procedural flaw
[6:50 PM] Scorch: I agree.
[7:00 PM] Zyvet: I can see that there may be an argument to be made in connection with the right to freedom of religion or speech, given the measures prescribed by the proposed motions, but it would seem to me that that argument would only really be open to those affected directly (government officials); a tangential argument that the right of freedom of religion might also be possible, arguing that a government endorsement of Christmas violates the right indirectly, but that seems to me to be quite weak, particularly considering that there is no prohibition on recognition of religion of the kind one might find in other NS or RL analogous rights. But in any event, that has not been argued by the petitioner
[7:02 PM] Zyvet: Perhaps invite them to elaborate rather than dismissing it outright just yet?
[7:32 PM] Scorch: Would Clean Land have to resubmit the request to do that?
[7:37 PM] Zyvet: Not so long as the request is not dismissed, previous courts have asked for elaboration before making a decision as to accepting or dismissing a request
[7:38 PM] Scorch: OK. I'm on board with asking for elaboration.
[7:44 PM] Zyvet: @Bootsie, would you accept or deny the review at the moment; do you wish for elaboration from Clean Land?
[9:15 PM] Bootsie: I'm good with elaboration.
[9:16 PM] Bootsie: This seems like it has potential.
28 November 2017
[12:18 AM] Zyvet: So, there has been elaboration.
I'm not sure that my view is changed too much by it, the fact that the law theoretically does something doesn't mean that they are an affected party now; standing requires some extant or imminent breach, the notionally possible breach put forward by the petitioner is not sufficient to demonstrate a clear connection between an action and a breach, in my view. In essence, the petitioner's claim to standing in on this basis is open to all residents at all times, even where the powers contained in s9.1 are not being exercised, and does not establish why they, particularly, are affected now.
The claim in relation to clause 1 of the BoR seems to go nowhere, as the effects of the proposed motion apply only to officials, not to the petitioner.
It looks like all that is really left is the article 9 Consty argument, which I'm quite sceptical of, in terms of whether it contains a substantive right rather than just powers and procedure with which to exercise them. I may have to think about this one, but at the moment I lean towards dismissal.(edited)
[12:37 AM] Zyvet: I'm going to sleep now, do remember that accepting a r4r only requires one Justice, so if either of you think that there is standing, you can accept it (though that will make you the moderating justice under the court rules); if this is done, be sure to state what the brief submission period is (usually 5 days) and use a (time=) code to indicate when it would end. If one of you wants to accept but not be the moderating justice, then indicate that here and I'll accept it when I wake up.
Any of us can also deny the request on our own too, but I think that denials should generally be done with a consensus behind them, as they are actually open to appeal.
[1:52 AM] Scorch: I also feel that Clean Land's elaboration has not changed my position much. The petitioner presented nothing that showed that this motion in the RA causes a breach. The article 9 consty argument in particular doesn't seem to actually provide any legitimate standing as there seem to be no rights listed in article 9.
[1:53 AM] Scorch: I think that we should dismiss this r4r.
[1:53 AM] Scorch: What do you think @Bootsie ?
[2:24 AM] Bootsie: I'm also in favor of the dismissal seeing the elaboration now.
[2:25 AM] Scorch: Alright. Since we all currently agree I think we can dismiss it now.
[2:26 AM] Scorch: @Bootsie do you want to do it or should I do it?
[2:41 AM] Bootsie: I can.
[2:41 AM] Scorch: Ok.
[2:42 AM] Bootsie: I mean, does it have to be complex, or just "The Court has decided to dismiss this Request for Review"?
[2:42 AM] Bootsie: I guess I should mention because there is no standing.
[2:43 AM] Scorch: I would give some basic reasoning.
[2:43 AM] Scorch: Like no standing.
[2:47 AM] Bootsie: "The Court has decided to dismiss this request because the proposer does not have standing"?
[2:47 AM] Bootsie: That sounds worse.
[2:47 AM] Bootsie: I'm so formal...
[3:35 AM] Bootsie: Sound good?
[3:36 AM] Scorch: What you wrote up there?
[3:36 AM] Bootsie: Yes, or is that worse?
[3:38 AM] Scorch: I would change proposer to petitioner.
[3:38 AM] Bootsie: But otherwise good?
[3:39 AM] Scorch: Maybe say request for review instead of just request but I think either way works.
[3:39 AM] Scorch: That's it:stuck_out_tongue:
[3:41 AM] Bootsie: Sorry, just want to get the details right.
[3:43 AM] Scorch: It's all good. I would be doing the same thing.
[3:54 AM] Scorch: If the petitioner decides to appeal the decision, I would suggest we give more reasoning as to why we came up with our final decision.
[4:00 AM] Bootsie: Aye.