Limerick1 Special Election

[Limerick1]

Hello fellow citizens! I am Limerick1 and as you may have already seen, I have declared my
candidacy for the Special Election concerning a new Court Justice. I am excited at the possibility
to take a direct role in upholding the constitution, bill of rights, and our numerous codes. I have a
deep passion for legislation and am very active within our very own world assembly affairs
ministry and i hope to put the skills i have obtained in writing and editing legislation to good use
dissecting our regulations and charters. I am relatively new around The North Pacific but i have
done my very best to play an active role in our community during my stay. I would appreciate the
opportunity to answer any questions you may have about my candidacy or my future plans
should I be given this great responsibility. Thank you for your time.

 

[abc]

How well versed are you on the laws of TNP?

Why should I vote for you?

Are there any changes to court procedures you'd like to see?

Finally, what are the responsibilities of a court justice?

 

[Limerick1]

How well versed are you on the laws of TNP?

Why should I vote for you?

Are there any changes to court procedures you'd like to see?

Finally, what are the responsibilities of a court justice?

Hi abc, as to how well versed on the laws of TNP i am, i have taken a lot of time to delve into our laws and procedures to learn as much about them as i could. i had planed to run for a court position in july so i began to prepare for that early. There are always new things to learn and i will not claim i know everything but i do my best to educate myself on any issue im faced with.

Why you should vote for me? I see myself as a strict constitutionalist who takes precedent very seriously. If the court does not follow its own precedent then what is the point of the court at all. If this is something you look for in a justice i would love your support. If not, i will still work hard for our region in another capacity.

At this current moments i believe that the court system works pretty well, the truth being that the court acts as a pretty big deterrent to commit crimes or to overstep boundaries. The effect of this is very few cases actually making it to court, i don't believe this is a bad thing at all, but it also means we rarely see our full court system in action. Should a problem arise with the system i would have no problem reviewing it. That is if someone were to make a request for review as i would not myself have the authority to change the courts procedure without it being brought in front of the court.

The responsibilities of a court justice are as follows:
1. To uphold and protect the charters and laws of which are established by the regional assembly as a whole
2. Provide citizens with an opportunity to call into question the acts of both individuals and the government as a whole, with legally binding opinions to enforce what is legal and to punish what is not
3. To act as an expert on the regions codes and to enforce the courts attribute of being a living institution with changing ways and means; to adapt to changes that may or may not be applied to the court
4. To keep an open mind on cases and reviews, as well to suspend bias. If this cannot be done it is a justices responsibility to recuse themself

Thank you for your interest and the time you have given me, i hope you have a wonderful day!

 

[BMWSurfer]

What is your stance on minimum or maximum sentences?

 

[Limerick1]

What is your stance on minimum or maximum sentences?

Well starting off just to preface, no matter how i personally feel about the practice of pre-setting minimums or maximums, it is ultimately up to the Regional Assembly to control how much discretion justices are extended. Now onto the question you actually asked.

My views are relatively similar for both sides of the spectrum. Minimums and maximums realistically act as baselines on which to judge the real life situation. While i do see the opportunity to abuse these ideas does exist, the idea of abuse actually occurring would be an anomaly. And such an anomaly would almost certainly be defeated on appeal with new presiding justices. If abuse was blatant enough but still made it all the way through, then perhaps it would be time to limit the judiciary.

The line "Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter." does give the court a lot of discretion on punishments outside of the circumstances listed in the rest of the Penal Code. While it does not say explicitly minimums and maximums, it does state "Proportionate to the crime". It is quite obvious that lesser crimes must receive lesser punishments. I feel regarding minimums and maximums, the way our penal code exists in its current state is satisfactory in its ability to extend discretion to to justices to make the calls, but to also provide legal council with a path of appeal regarding proportionality.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Have you reviewed the opinions the court has issued in response to requests for review? Are they any that stood out to you as particularly wise and well thought out? Did any strike you as unsatisfactory? Which ones, and why?

Why did you choose to include line breaks in your campaign post, rather than letting the text wrap?

 

[Limerick1]

I have taken some time to familiarize myself with the opinions of the court. An opinion that i thought was wise would be demonstrated with "On Leaving a Candidates Name off the Ballot". My reasoning being that even though the situation was addressed by government officials, a precedent was not allowed to be set in which mistakes like the one in question would not be rectified in accordance of the bill of rights, but would simply be apologized for. Such a precedent would be dangerous to set and could open elections up to further omission abuse. There really arent any that are unsatisfactory in my eyes, i do feel that some could have been settled out of court but using the court does allow precedent to be set and the rulings to have binding decisions.

As to why i included line breaks, i actually didn't, or at least not intentionally. I draft most of my documents in google docs and it seems that the margins must have been messed up. Chalk it up to a clerical error.

Thank you for your time and questions, if my answers were not satisfactory i am more than happy to deliberate

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I figured the line break thing would be something like that

I'll be frank - I'm not too impressed with that first answer. You picked a very short ruling fairly early in the list, which didn't deal with a very complex issue. It made me consider the possibility that you haven't read that many court opinions yet, or are skimming through the longer ones. That being said, I agree with your assessment of that ruling.

This gets at the main reason I'm posting in your campaign. Typically, I'm very hesitant to vote for newer people for Justice, since we have a lot of laws, and probably even more judicial precedent on the books. Becoming competent in that can take a serious amount of time. That being said, your campaign doesn't immediately raise any disqualifying red flags in my eyes. You have defined the role of a justice accurately, and your WA experience is not irrelevant. However, while I haven't found any huge reasons not to vote for you, I haven't yet seen many reasons to vote for you either. For someone who joined the forum last month to earn my vote, I would need to be impressed by their innate skills, since they don't have any experience to recommend them.

To that end, let me ask your assessment of the following court opinions. I didn't choose these because I necessarily think they are especially good or especially bad, but I think that they will get at what kind of justice you would be:

-On Standing and the Definion of Affected Party
-On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the Regional Assembly
-On the Use of the Speaker's Power to End Debate
-On the Suppression of Posts on the Regional Message Board

 

[TlomzKrano]

To your best interpretation, can a Deputy Minister of a Ministry be charged with Gross Misconduct? Asking for a friend...

 

[Isimud]

aplogies, but tl;dr for the moment., but a question? Why is Justice blind?

Edit: oky. I did read and I'll stop intruding here.

 

[Limerick1]

I figured the line break thing would be something like that

I'll be frank - I'm not too impressed with that first answer. You picked a very short ruling fairly early in the list, which didn't deal with a very complex issue. It made me consider the possibility that you haven't read that many court opinions yet, or are skimming through the longer ones. That being said, I agree with your assessment of that ruling.

This gets at the main reason I'm posting in your campaign. Typically, I'm very hesitant to vote for newer people for Justice, since we have a lot of laws, and probably even more judicial precedent on the books. Becoming competent in that can take a serious amount of time. That being said, your campaign doesn't immediately raise any disqualifying red flags in my eyes. You have defined the role of a justice accurately, and your WA experience is not irrelevant. However, while I haven't found any huge reasons not to vote for you, I haven't yet seen many reasons to vote for you either. For someone who joined the forum last month to earn my vote, I would need to be impressed by their innate skills, since they don't have any experience to recommend them.

To that end, let me ask your assessment of the following court opinions. I didn't choose these because I necessarily think they are especially good or especially bad, but I think that they will get at what kind of justice you would be:

-On Standing and the Definion of Affected Party
-On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the Regional Assembly
-On the Use of the Speaker's Power to End Debate
-On the Suppression of Posts on the Regional Message Board

On Standing and the Definition of Affected Party- The court took the correct action in this case. I don't believe there are many people who will object to the ruling. The petitioner made a strong case in the Request for Review enumerating the reasons they were an "affected party" as well as the ambiguity in word "affected". Going on to quote "The Court will try all criminal and civil 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." The most important part of the quote being the "conflicts or ambiguities". This case was essentially an open and shut case from the beginning but the case is important in the way that "affected" now has a legally binding definition.

On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the Regional Assembly- I would argue that this case is one of the landmark cases ever faced by our court. This case seems to almost ask two questions of the court, one being circumstantial and one being a lasting decision. The circumstantial question being whether or not the admittance of Treize_Dreizehn was legal, and whether or not their membership should be revoked. The lasting question being whether or not the speaker must continue to deny applicants if they once were denied and the regional assembly upholds the decision. The court had much to sift through and think about. With three Amicus briefs submitted to supplement the petitioners belief, the facts of the case were brought fronthand. The court's decision in my opinion could not have been better. While as you brought up in your brief, the authors may not have intended to create a situation in which the speaker must have the Regional Assembly strike down the original decision, that is how it must be interpreted. If the RA wishes the documents could be amended. However, the court allowing Treize_Dreizehn to stay within the RA is problematic in my opinion. While i do believe they should have been allowed to stay, i feel the court should have passed the decision onto the regional assembly. I have no doubts that with their record they would have been allowed to stay. I find it hypocritical of the court to extend special treatment to Treize_Dreizehn directly after they rule that their admittance into the RA was unlawful. Seeing as the individual was not the petitioner and the case was more about the lasting effects of this decision rather than the individual decision itself, i feel that the RA should have been made to strike down their original decision as prescribed in the court's decision.

On the Use of the Speaker's Power to End Debate- I will keep this one brief not because im lazy and not because this case isn't supremely important, but rather because of the circumstances of the ruling made by the court. Throughout my campaign i have strongly argued the importance of precedence when looking at cases. So too are the supplemental briefs filed for this case but for a different reasons. The briefs submitted further dissect and outline the facts of the case which is incredibly helpful and important when looking into a case. However, as stated in the court's decision, "Previous Courts have interpreted this power broadly, upholding the Speaker's broad authority to maintain an appropriate atmosphere, promote a productive use of the Regional Assembly, and block proposals and votes which they deem harmful. While the relevant law has changed since the previous decision, prompting us to take this case, upon investigation the underlying principles have not." The court had previously upheld the speakers power to administer the rules in the RA and seeing as though the circumstances around this situation are incredibly similar to previous cases, the court should and did rule in favor of the speaker acting in the correct way. If the court does not follow precedent, what is the point of the court in the first place, if they flip flop on issues on a case by case basis with little differences in the case, why bother asking them to rule on cases.

On the Suppression of Posts on the Regional Message Board- Whether or not i agree with the way the decision was given in this post is one question and the courts decision is another. The last line of the decision is correct in the fact that i don't feel that this conflict required court litigation but it did come to the court and they did rule in the same way i would have. Now my biggest problem in the ruling is the use of the British pound rather than the far superior dollar, I am of course only joking. While i am a fan of comedy, i feel that in the final ruling itself, comedy should be left out and focus more on the facts of the case. Not in a way to be a killjoy, i find the ruling to be quite comical, however i don't feel that a ruling is the right place to display it.

I understand the feeling behind being hesitant to vote for someone new, i have always argued to take care when voting for justices. I recently wrote and article for the MoComm discussing that people should care more about their court votes. I hope that i can be the best person i can. i want the most capable person in that seat abd if that isnt me thaen so be it. i will still thank you for helping me to grow and for asking good questions

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Don't feel bad about this question. I asked it of the other candidate(s) as well:

Given the following cases...

Request for Review: the ability of the RA to violate the sovereignty of residents
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9092500/

Request for Review; The scope of the review power of the court and court dictatorship
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9100005/

Request for Review: The Court's Illegal Review of an RA Proposal
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9093434/

...how would you have ruled in each of these?

 

[Highton]

Your lack of experience does worry me, however, you seem to know what you are talking about and would certainly be qualified. Is there anything you'd like to add to try and sway my vote?

 

[Limerick1]

Don't feel bad about this question. I asked it of the other candidate(s) as well:

Given the following cases...

Request for Review: the ability of the RA to violate the sovereignty of residents
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9092500/

Request for Review; The scope of the review power of the court and court dictatorship
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9100005/

Request for Review: The Court's Illegal Review of an RA Proposal
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9093434/

...how would you have ruled in each of these?

To preface, im going to make my analysis of these rather brief in the interest of saving the readers time, if you have further questions or wish that i deliberate further feel free to ask

Request for Review: the ability of the RA to violate the sovereignty of residents
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9092500/

The request for review was a little problematic in that it asks for an injunction to stop a proposal from coming to vote. I would argue this directly goes against the courts precedent of protecting the autonomy of the RA more specifically to allow the speaker to preform their role effectively


Request for Review; The scope of the review power of the court and court dictatorship
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9100005/

I agree with the courts ruling and specifically the brief filed by the AG. The court is very powerful but has its limits. The court does not have the ability to act as a dictatorship without very exceptional and unrealistic circumstances concerning every justices agreement and the help of a powerful third party. The court must wait for its cases to come to them making it hard to overstep its power. Additionally, the courts decisions are binding even to the institution itself. The only way to bypass this would be for the RA to overrule its decision with a constitutional amendment.


Request for Review: The Court's Illegal Review of an RA Proposal
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9093434/

The court is a reactionary institution. While its members cannot just go off and search for cases, it can wait for cases to be brought to them. Once a case is brought to the court, the court itself has full discretion on whether or not to review it. While it may need reasoning to deny cases, it can accept any and all cases if it pleases.

 

[Just a Lore]

Request for Review: The Court's Illegal Review of an RA Proposal
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9093434/

The court is a reactionary institution. While its members cannot just go off and search for cases, it can wait for cases to be brought to them. Once a case is brought to the court, the court itself has full discretion on whether or not to review it. While it may need reasoning to deny cases, it can accept any and all cases if it pleases.

Just for clarification, you are are stating an opposition to the ruling that was made?

If so, I would like to get your interpretation of the relevant part of the constitution that was cited as limitation on the scope of what the court is allowed to accept as an R4R.

 

[Limerick1]

Request for Review: The Court's Illegal Review of an RA Proposal
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9093434/

The court is a reactionary institution. While its members cannot just go off and search for cases, it can wait for cases to be brought to them. Once a case is brought to the court, the court itself has full discretion on whether or not to review it. While it may need reasoning to deny cases, it can accept any and all cases if it pleases.

Just for clarification, you are are stating an opposition to the ruling that was made?

If so, I would like to get your interpretation of the relevant part of the constitution that was cited as limitation on the scope of what the court is allowed to accept as an R4R.

The question of whether or not a justice has the discretion to accept or deny a request is stated within the court procedures. “Any Justice may accept or deny a request for review, at their discretion. The Justice who accepts a request for review will become its Moderating Justice.“ This is where I gather the basis for how I would’ve ruled.

 

[Just a Lore]

Request for Review: The Court's Illegal Review of an RA Proposal
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9093434/

The court is a reactionary institution. While its members cannot just go off and search for cases, it can wait for cases to be brought to them. Once a case is brought to the court, the court itself has full discretion on whether or not to review it. While it may need reasoning to deny cases, it can accept any and all cases if it pleases.

Just for clarification, you are are stating an opposition to the ruling that was made?

If so, I would like to get your interpretation of the relevant part of the constitution that was cited as limitation on the scope of what the court is allowed to accept as an R4R.

The question of whether or not a justice has the discretion to accept or deny a request is stated within the court procedures. “Any Justice may accept or deny a request for review, at their discretion. The Justice who accepts a request for review will become its Moderating Justice.“ This is where I gather the basis for how I would’ve ruled.

So your interpretation is that the court can set its own rules that is of higher authority then constitution itself?

I say that because you ignored the the fact that the constitution itself was cited in that case as a limitation on the court and instead are basing your view entirely on the Court Procedures which are little more then Policy that the Court has ordered itself to follow.

 

[Limerick1]

Request for Review: The Court's Illegal Review of an RA Proposal
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9093434/

The court is a reactionary institution. While its members cannot just go off and search for cases, it can wait for cases to be brought to them. Once a case is brought to the court, the court itself has full discretion on whether or not to review it. While it may need reasoning to deny cases, it can accept any and all cases if it pleases.

Just for clarification, you are are stating an opposition to the ruling that was made?

If so, I would like to get your interpretation of the relevant part of the constitution that was cited as limitation on the scope of what the court is allowed to accept as an R4R.

The question of whether or not a justice has the discretion to accept or deny a request is stated within the court procedures. “Any Justice may accept or deny a request for review, at their discretion. The Justice who accepts a request for review will become its Moderating Justice.“ This is where I gather the basis for how I would’ve ruled.

So your interpretation is that the court can set its own rules that is of higher authority then constitution itself?

I say that because you ignored the the fact that the constitution itself was cited in that case as a limitation on the court and instead are basing your view entirely on the Court Procedures which are little more then Policy that the Court has ordered itself to follow.

No the court does not have the authority to set its own rules, but the central question in the case is clearly answered in the court procedures being that the court does have the authority to accept or deny reviews in its discretion. But was the constitution overules the court, of the ra were to amend this, it would no longer be the rule. The court is beholden to the constitution not the other way around. You may say that the court procedures are nothing more than policy, however this does not make it any less legally binding as stated in the page itself.

 

[Flemingovia]

The Second trial of Durkadurkistan (JAL) is one of the most famous trials in TNP history. Do you feel that based on the evidence presented the correct verdict was reached? If not, how would you have conducted the trial differently? What procedural mistakes were made by the presiding justices (if any)?

 

[Just a Lore]

No the court does not have the authority to set its own rules, but the central question in the case is clearly answered in the court procedures being that the court does have the authority to accept or deny reviews in its discretion. But was the constitution overules the court, of the ra were to amend this, it would no longer be the rule. The court is beholden to the constitution not the other way around. You may say that the court procedures are nothing more than policy, however this does not make it any less legally binding as stated in the page itself.

So circling back since you never answered the original question. I would like you to explain why the following passage from the constitution

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.

does not limit the scope of what types of R4R the court is allowed to accept.

 

[Limerick1]

No the court does not have the authority to set its own rules, but the central question in the case is clearly answered in the court procedures being that the court does have the authority to accept or deny reviews in its discretion. But was the constitution overules the court, of the ra were to amend this, it would no longer be the rule. The court is beholden to the constitution not the other way around. You may say that the court procedures are nothing more than policy, however this does not make it any less legally binding as stated in the page itself.

So circling back since you never answered the original question. I would like you to explain why the following passage from the constitution

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.

does not limit the scope of what types of R4R the court is allowed to accept.

Very sorry for my misunderstanding of what you were asking. I can see how this article would limit the jurisdiction of the court. Only being able to review ambiguities in law. I do think in this case it would fatal under legality of government policy by request of affected party. Personally I feel you just reveale to me a major inconsistency in our documents that I feel should be addressed. Like I’ve been saying one legally binding document says the court has all discretion but another document limits it. Perhaps an amendment is needed to correct the contradiction. Again very sorry, I’m not trying to run from your question I just misunderstood

 

[Eluvatar]

No the court does not have the authority to set its own rules, but the central question in the case is clearly answered in the court procedures being that the court does have the authority to accept or deny reviews in its discretion. But was the constitution overules the court, of the ra were to amend this, it would no longer be the rule. The court is beholden to the constitution not the other way around. You may say that the court procedures are nothing more than policy, however this does not make it any less legally binding as stated in the page itself.

So circling back since you never answered the original question. I would like you to explain why the following passage from the constitution

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.

does not limit the scope of what types of R4R the court is allowed to accept.

Very sorry for my misunderstanding of what you were asking. I can see how this article would limit the jurisdiction of the court. Only being able to review ambiguities in law. I do think in this case it would fatal under legality of government policy by request of affected party. Personally I feel you just reveale to me a major inconsistency in our documents that I feel should be addressed. Like I’ve been saying one legally binding document says the court has all discretion but another document limits it. Perhaps an amendment is needed to correct the contradiction. Again very sorry, I’m not trying to run from your question I just misunderstood

I would say that the justices are legally required to exercise their procedural discretion in a constitutional manner.

 

[Dinoium]

What Legal Documents have you read so far and which part of a legal document should be amend if needed?

 

[Limerick1]

What Legal Documents have you read so far and which part of a legal document should be amend if needed?

i answered this question in abc's post. If you are refering to my previous post, the contradictory statements within the constitution and court procedure

 

[Limerick1]

No the court does not have the authority to set its own rules, but the central question in the case is clearly answered in the court procedures being that the court does have the authority to accept or deny reviews in its discretion. But was the constitution overules the court, of the ra were to amend this, it would no longer be the rule. The court is beholden to the constitution not the other way around. You may say that the court procedures are nothing more than policy, however this does not make it any less legally binding as stated in the page itself.

So circling back since you never answered the original question. I would like you to explain why the following passage from the constitution

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.

does not limit the scope of what types of R4R the court is allowed to accept.

Very sorry for my misunderstanding of what you were asking. I can see how this article would limit the jurisdiction of the court. Only being able to review ambiguities in law. I do think in this case it would fatal under legality of government policy by request of affected party. Personally I feel you just reveale to me a major inconsistency in our documents that I feel should be addressed. Like I’ve been saying one legally binding document says the court has all discretion but another document limits it. Perhaps an amendment is needed to correct the contradiction. Again very sorry, I’m not trying to run from your question I just misunderstood

I would say that the justices are legally required to exercise their procedural discretion in a constitutional manner.

as would i, however it seems that our legal documents have conflicting beliefs on this

 

[Dinoium]

What Legal Documents have you read so far and which part of a legal document should be amend if needed?

i answered this question in abc's post. If you are refering to my previous post, the contradictory statements within the constitution and court procedure

If you're going to become a Justice, you should read other Legal Documents such as the Bill of Rights and the Legal Code, also other treaties and rules of certain parts of the government such as Election Commission Rules and Regional Assembly Rules...
Will you read them?

 

[Limerick1]

What Legal Documents have you read so far and which part of a legal document should be amend if needed?

i answered this question in abc's post. If you are refering to my previous post, the contradictory statements within the constitution and court procedure

If you're going to become a Justice, you should read other Legal Documents such as the Bill of Rights and the Legal Code, also other treaties and rules of certain parts of the government such as Election Commission Rules and Regional Assembly Rules...
Will you read them?

I have read them and continue to read them as stated in my response to abc

 

[Eluvatar]

I would say that the justices are legally required to exercise their procedural discretion in a constitutional manner.

as would i, however it seems that our legal documents have conflicting beliefs on this

I don't see a contradiction.

Procedurally, the justices have discretion. Legally, they are required to act in a constitutional manner. Constitutionally, they are required to accept requests for review only when the requesting nation has a stake in the case (or is the Attorney General).

The procedures just specify the process for how the justices do it, not what sorts of decision they are required to take.

 

[Limerick1]

I don’t agree with that interpretation.

“Any Justice may accept or deny a request for review, at their discretion.” Says that the justices have discretion on what cases to accept. This isn’t just procedural as it affects the case before it is accepted and determines whether or not cases must be accepted. I would argue this is in contradiction to other documents that do not extend this ideal.

 

[Limerick1]

Hello everyone, I cannot thank everyone enough. Today the voting is over, but my campaign is not. I will always be open to questions surrounding my interpretation of cases (that are already decided) as well as our laws. Thank everyone for their questions and I hope everyone has a great day. I look forward to finding out the results!

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I don’t agree with that interpretation.

“Any Justice may accept or deny a request for review, at their discretion.” Says that the justices have discretion on what cases to accept. This isn’t just procedural as it affects the case before it is accepted and determines whether or not cases must be accepted. I would argue this is in contradiction to other documents that do not extend this ideal.

Just to follow up on this, since I'm only now catching up on this thread, I'd like to point out that the court rules derive their legitimacy from Article 7 Clause 12 of the Constitution:

12. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.

Therefore, any perceived contradiction must be resolved in a manner that subordinates the procedure to the law and to the constitution. Judicial discretion is therefore constrained by the constitution, just as Elu argues above.

 

[Limerick1]

I don’t agree with that interpretation.

“Any Justice may accept or deny a request for review, at their discretion.” Says that the justices have discretion on what cases to accept. This isn’t just procedural as it affects the case before it is accepted and determines whether or not cases must be accepted. I would argue this is in contradiction to other documents that do not extend this ideal.

Just to follow up on this, since I'm only now catching up on this thread, I'd like to point out that the court rules derive their legitimacy from Article 7 Clause 12 of the Constitution:

12. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.

Therefore, any perceived contradiction must be resolved in a manner that subordinates the procedure to the law and to the constitution. Judicial discretion is therefore constrained by the constitution, just as Elu argues above.

Correct, my argument is not with the the constitution being supreme, it is solely with the fact that this court procedures exerpt seems redundant and should probably be changed to correspond with the constitutions interpretation. While it wouldn’t change how it is applied, it would reduce unnecessary clutter.

 

[SillyString]

Limerick, that section of the court rules exists to specify that any of the justices, individually, possesses the power to accept or deny a review. It exempts them from having to vote first, or from only the chief justice being able to act.

It does not empower them to accept things on which the court cannot legally rule. As Elu and COE said, the Court Rules are still subject to the restrictions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Legal Code.