@Wonderess thank you for taking the plunge once again and running for Justice. It definitely seems like the kind of thing that would play to your strengths, and I know that finding a just and proper solution to problems is something you believe in doing. I have a series of questions:
In light of the recently passed AGORA Act, is it your opinion that the Court no longer can resolve matters of ambiguity or clarify legal questions through the normal Court process? If not, what is the best way for the Court to do that? Is that something the Court should be doing?
What is your opinion on setting up a civil procedure for the Court? Is it necessary? Would it work? If you attempted to pursue it, how would you do it?
Is there any criteria you feel would render a legal complaint frivolous or illegitimate? If so, what circumstances do you imagine would meet this criteria?
There have been a series of cases within the last year which featured guilty pleas and advocacy for reduced sentences, and yet the Court rendered what many felt were overly harsh judgments. Looking back at these recent cases, can you identify any which you feel had overly harsh sentences, and if so, how would you have ruled differently?
Is there any other case previously heard by the Court that you feel was decided incorrectly or inappropriately, and if so, how would you have ruled differently?
Judicial restraint is something many would consider to be worthy of pursuit. Explain your vision and personal philosophy as it comes to restraint and how this principle would be embodied, or tempered, by your own actions on the Court.
Related to the above, given that the number of cases the Court hears each term may be few and far between and the region's Court precedent slow to develop, do you believe that it is desirable to use the Court to right wrongs or address problems in existing law if given the chance with a relevant case? For the purposes of this question, I am taking it for granted that the Court will not rule on something or expand an opinion beyond what is germane to a case they are hearing.
Considering that Justices are elected in TNP just as officials in the others branches are, do you believe there is an imperative for the Court to defer entirely to the other branches when faced with situations where laws or decisions may be at risk of being overturned or deemed inconsistent with the constitution? Where is the bar for you when it comes to using your judgment to possibly reverse or undo the efforts of the other branches? Are there clear situations where this should or should not be done?
The penal code contemplates sentences that are mostly finite in nature, but in a few situations may be indefinite or permanent. In your view is there a functional difference between an indefinite sentence versus a permanent one in our laws as written? If so, what situations may one form of sentence be preferable over the other?
It has been remarked at various times that the Court does not provide an opportunity for interested citizens to learn the ropes or get acquainted with the region's legal system outside of reading legal documents and case law. Do you believe there is a way to provide such opportunities to citizens, such as a clerk or staff position working under the justices? Is this even something that is desirable or worthy or pursuit? If so, how would you propose going about doing that?
This is not your first time running. As such, I would like to know:
What have you learned from your last time running for Justice? Did you have preconceived notions that were corrected during the election? How have you approached this campaign differently from the last one?
Since you last ran, what has occurred in the region that has altered your priorities, thoughts, or plans for the Court, if anything?
I imagine this would matter a lot to you, and it's definitely going to be on the mind of anyone who knows you and considers voting for you, so I have to ask. Do you believe there are principles greater than anything written in our law that should be considered when rendering judgment on the Court? How much weight would you give to the "bigger picture" or the "greater good?" Some would likely not want something outside of the laws or precedent as written guiding the decisions made by the Justices, so if you do give that consideration, how would you balance it with a more restrained or strict approach to making a decision? I recognize this may have been covered with previous answers, but given the Catholic elephant in the room, I would be remiss if I didn't address it directly.
