Justice that's Fit for a King

SillyString

SillyString

TNPer
-
-
This king, anyway!! :P

Hello! I am SillyString, current chief justice and long time member of the court. I have written a number of rulings during my terms which I am quite proud of.

I do not like to campaign for policy objectives that I will pursue as justice, because I think the Court is not a body which can or should seek specific changes. Rather, it should respond to those matters which are brought before it.

However, one thing I would like to highlight from the previous term is a change that we (Eluvatar and I, as Limerick unfortunately was not able to serve the full term) adopted. In an effort to clarify the principles behind standing, we chose to include a section on how each petitioner who was granted a request for review was determined to have standing to bring the case.

We chose to do this because the ruling which defines standing is very short and lacks detail, which has led to confusion over the years about when or why someone is qualified to file a request for review. Every time the court acts to accept or deny such a request it creates precedent around standing, but there is no formal codification of those decisions and it is difficult for future courts, or petitioners, to go back and reference that again.

It is our hope that specifically acknowledging standing within the decision on a review will help make an understanding of this idea more accessible to future courts and to all citizens.

This has not been codified in the court rules, though that could be done in the future.

I welcome your questions, comments, and concerns!!
 
It's good to see you run for reelection, Sillystring. :P I wish you godspeed on the rest of your campaign and the election. :)
 
What are your thoughts on the perennial concern that reviews take a significant amount of time to finish?
Do you believe the CRaP should be updated to consider a more realistic time frame?
Do you believe the period for submitting briefs should also be extended to give those more time to be drafted as well?
Do you believe the Court should endeavor to check in with the public review thread with updates on a regular basis?
What are your thoughts on the idea that the Court rarely sees new faces on the bench?
 
What are your thoughts on Justices being appointed by the Delegate and confirmed by the Regional Assembly for a six month term?
 
Darcania:
What are your thoughts on the perennial concern that reviews take a significant amount of time to finish?
Click to expand...
I think that most of the time, it does not take the Court much time to agree on a decision about the specific question that was asked in a request for review. However, some of our worst rulings have been issued by courts that stopped there, rather than also considering the implications of the ruling they were about to issue, or the answers to additional questions that that ruling raised.

For example, in GM's request for review, once we decided that altering the oath rendered an application invalid, that raised the question of how previously accepted incorrect oaths should be treated, should someone who swore one ever be brought up on charges. I did not feel I would be acting responsibly as a justice if we simply ignored that question - a citizens should always know the status of their oath and their legal obligations. It should not be uncertain, as a result of something the Court has done, whether they are free to violate the law or not.

Which is all to say, yes, reviews do take some time to be issued, but most of the time I think that that is justified based on the complexity of the matter.

Do you believe the CRaP should be updated to consider a more realistic time frame?
Click to expand...

That might be reasonable. I would not want to encourage a future court to dilly dally, but perhaps a more realistic timeframe would keep petitioners from becoming impatient.

Do you believe the period for submitting briefs should also be extended to give those more time to be drafted as well?
Click to expand...

That also sounds reasonable. The court does have leeway now to extend the brief submission period, but that is rarely requested or used.

Do you believe the Court should endeavor to check in with the public review thread with updates on a regular basis?
Click to expand...

Not really, to be honest. Those updates are never actually informative - the moderating justice can't tell people what the decision is likely to be. All updates really do is inform people that the court has not forgotten about their request and is "still working on it". I guess there can be some merit in just that, but it seems repetitive to keep posting the same update until the ruling is done.

What are your thoughts on the idea that the Court rarely sees new faces on the bench?
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't think the Court is a good way for someone to dip their toes into government. The ability to correct a Court error is extremely limited, in contrast with other offices, and much of what the Court does can have far-ranging consequences.

As such, the "new faces" that we see joining the court generally are, and should be, people who have been around the region for a while and who are familiar with its laws and functions. The exceptions to that are often people who have been on courts in other regions, or who have a good innate grasp of the law and its interpretation.

Artemis:
What are your thoughts on Justices being appointed by the Delegate and confirmed by the Regional Assembly for a six month term?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. It's an interesting idea, and electing justices is generally not my first preference of systems. But I would worry about the delegate stacking the bench for some purpose or another, or other political considerations coming into play (like not appointing someone as a justice because they didn't vote for you).
 
good luck silly string! you've been a talented judge and accurate reader, in my experience
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top