saintpeter for Justice

To whom it may concern,

I recently announced my candidacy for Justice and hereby publish my campaign thread. Please feel free to ask any questions. In this message, I will try to address what I suppose are some of the questions people may have. I see that the other candidates have significantly shorter threads—probably because their experience already establishes about them what I say about myself here—but of course, I cannot address everything, so questions are again very welcome. I am somewhat busy until July 10, but will try to provide good answers as quick as possible.

I saw in some of the archived campaign threads that people made fancy logos for their campaigns. I, unfortunately, do not possess such skills, so I hope this semi-relevant quote will do.

On judicial philosophies
When thinking about lawyers, we like to think of them as adhering to one or two judicial philosophies (e.g. textualism). I understand this need, because when voting on or discussing a justice, we do not want to delve into the details of all their specific opinions. However, I personally would not subscribe to any particular philosophy per se. Rather, I believe a lawyer should take a pragmatic approach when dealing with law. Laws affect the people in our region, and far-away theoretical considerations that bear no resemblance to the status quo should not deny our citizens their constitutional rights. Decisions should be firmly grounded in theories and arguments that deal not just with the question at hand, but its practical implications.

In general, I like to keep close to the text of the law; the text of the law is after all often the best source as to what the citizens wanted the law to be. Unfortunately, the law doesn't always lay out specifically what the Regional Assembly (RA) wanted it to mean. In fact, sometimes different voters may vote for or against a law while holding different ideas of what the language of the law actually means in practice. This makes it very difficult to establish the RA's original intent and makes it so that the perceived orginalist interpretation is often not necessarily accurate. At the same time, decisions contrary to the originalist interpretation are often seen as judicial activism—although this is an overly broad understanding of this concept.

To balance these competing factors, I would normally apply the plain meaning rule as some call it in England, as well as a broader version of the golden rule, which, based on the facts of the case, may at times resemble the modern principle in construction. Combined with a foundation of pragmatism, this would in my opinion lead to a Court that is as just as it can be.

On judicial restraint
People have good reasons to be concerned with the power of the Courts. The decisions of the Court influences the way the region operates, but at the same time, its decisions are not nearly as democratic as the decisions of the RA. Fears of the Court legislating from the bench may logically lead to calls for judicial restraint (the belief the Court should grant the RA broad discretion in how it aligns its laws with the Constitution). In my opinion, however, such a call would be misguided. I fully recognise the concern that some have in judges failing to self-regulate their exercises of power, but this cannot pose a burden to the fundamental rights of our region's citizens.

Instead of allowing unconstitutional laws to exist because they are not plainly unconstitutional, the Court should protect the Constitution to the fullest extent. Now, this does not mean the Court cannot self-regulate its power. The Court is perfectly capable of enforcing the Constitution while deferring the legislative needs to the RA. If, for example, a clause is ambiguous (to prevent me from prejudging any potential issue, I will not mention a specific clause), but the way it was applied by a government official was clearly absurd, the Court can rule as such while deferring the task of clarifying the clause to the RA.

Some practical notes on the Court
First of all, I would note that I support the idea of law clerks and that, as Justice, I would advocate for setting up a trial with one, two or possibly three clerks. Second of all, if I am elected, I will undoubtedly serve with Justices more experienced than me. It would not be any problem for me to utilise their experience to the benefit of the Court, even if that would somehow lead to being overshadowed by this experience in the beginning. Lastly, I have no reason to belief that I will not be able to serve the full term or be hindered by a lack of time. As noted, this week is particularly busy for me, but such periods are always short and far between.

I thank all those that finished reading my campaign, and welcome any questions.
--saintpeter

You’ve often been seen, most recently, referencing U.S. case law as a way of illustrating your arguments in legal briefs. Seeing as to how U.S. case law isn’t applicable to the North Pacific or our judicial system, if you were to be elected as a Justice then I’d like to know the following:

From what areas will you examine when drafting opinions and formulating positions and how will you contextualize matters pertinent to your position? As an example, will you look to past precedent and then elaborate further upon that? Will you look more towards your own philosophies about law and what role it plays? Will you focus on the degree to which an argument presented to you is compelling?

Basically, if you were to be on the Court, where does your approach come from? I know that you talk about wanting to follow the actual text firstly, but in cases where you mentioned the law doesn’t always outline a clear path I’m looking for some testament to what discretion you’ll use and where you’ll draw that discretion from.

As someone who has been active throughout the region since arriving, I must say it is nice to see someone like you running for such a position. With that said, I do have a handful of questions.

Do you believe that, as a Justice, you must maintain impartiality on regional matters? For example, if a bill came to the RA for a vote, would you vote? Would you advocate one way or another on that bill?

Do you believe that previous confrontations with other players, regarding in-character and out-of-character interactions, will impact you as a Justice?

On a scale of 1-10, determine how familiar you believe yourself to be with our legal code, with 1 being not at all and 10 being you know everything about it. Give a brief description of that familiarity and why you chose the number you did.

What current or previous Justice of TNP would you like to be most like and why?

Do you have any history in NS that would be applicable to this position?

I look forward to your answers.

Robespierre:

You’ve often been seen, most recently, referencing U.S. case law as a way of illustrating your arguments in legal briefs. Seeing as to how U.S. case law isn’t applicable to the North Pacific or our judicial system, if you were to be elected as a Justice then I’d like to know the following:

From what areas will you examine when drafting opinions and formulating positions and how will you contextualize matters pertinent to your position? As an example, will you look to past precedent and then elaborate further upon that? Will you look more towards your own philosophies about law and what role it plays? Will you focus on the degree to which an argument presented to you is compelling?

Basically, if you were to be on the Court, where does your approach come from?

Click to expand...

Thank you for that question. With regards to US case law, I referenced two cases when I was arguing about the vagueness doctrine, a doctrine not present in TNP case law. I referenced the cases not because I in any way believe they are authoritative as case law in TNP, but instead as a way to illustrate a somewhat complicated legal concept. Upon reflection, my decision was not explicit enough and my argument would have worked out just as well, and possibly even better, if I didn't reference those cases.

The specific areas I would look at depend on the specific case at hand. However, in general, I would say precedent is a very important source and I strongly believe in stare decisis. Based on that precedent, I would judge the case based on the facts at hand, and like any Justice, the specific application of the law can and will be influenced by my judicial philosophy as outlined in my original post. However, these philosophies are flexible, as I do not believe a set-in-stone philosophy is useful to the pragmatic approach I believe the Court should take in dealing with cases.

I do not believe I should base my decision on the strenght of arguments made by the citizens that filed a brief, as this is not a high school debating competition. That is not to say these briefs cannot inform my position, they absolutely can, should and will, but I do not adjudicate cases like they are a competition.

Cosmosplosion:

As someone who has been active throughout the region since arriving, I must say it is nice to see someone like you running for such a position. With that said, I do have a handful of questions.

Do you believe that, as a Justice, you must maintain impartiality on regional matters? For example, if a bill came to the RA for a vote, would you vote? Would you advocate one way or another on that bill?

Do you believe that previous confrontations with other players, regarding in-character and out-of-character interactions, will impact you as a Justice?

On a scale of 1-10, determine how familiar you believe yourself to be with our legal code, with 1 being not at all and 10 being you know everything about it. Give a brief description of that familiarity and why you chose the number you did.

What current or previous Justice of TNP would you like to be most like and why?

Do you have any history in NS that would be applicable to this position?

I look forward to your answers.

Click to expand...

I thank you too for your questions. As to the first, although I do not believe voting in the RA would prevent me from judging impartially, I find it important that I maintain public trust that I, and by extension the Court, is impartial, and I would thus abstain from voting, and I will not argue in favour or against a proposal.

I do not believe previous discussions, particularly in the #real-life chat, will prevent me from judging all cases fairly. Even if not always clear, I greatly respect those that are willing to share their views in such an open environment. If, in the unlikely scenario that I for any reason feel I cannot judge one fairly, I will recuse myself in line with section 1(3) of chapter 4 of the Court Procedures.

I like the question as to my familiarity with the legal code, but struggled to come to a good number. I ended up with a 7. I have read and understand the legal code as written, but I, of course, am not experienced in applying these codes, as those that previously served on the Court are; so in the context of my role as Justice (which I assume is how you want me to answer), I would come to a 7.

As to the Justice I aspire to be, I find that to be a difficult question, as I do not normally contrast myself with others like that, but I would note that I greatly admire the precision and carefulness that Zyvetskistaahn shows in every decision he issues.

As to my previous history: possibly surprisingly, I used to roleplay as a leftist in The Communist Bloc, where I served in various branches of government, including as a Justice. For privacy purposes, I won't share the username I used there, but I could verify this with an administrator if people would like me to.

Theoreticals

1. Its Liberation Day. The Ministry of Radio has released a show talking about why this day is important. @Praetor files a criminal complaint because radio shows are non-essential government business. Dreadton points out that Non-essential government business is undefined and that an essential government function is educating the population about the reasons behind Memorial Days. Where would you go to seek guidance on what is essential or non-essential?

2. A citizen opens a thread to change the standing procedures to require a 24 hour period between the opening of debate and a vote, except when an emergency is declared. The thread is closed by the Speaker. He states that such a discussion is not in the interest of the region. The citizen files a R4R. He states that the Speaker violated the rules, as limiting the power of the Speaker is in the interest of the region. The speaker states he has broad leeway in controlling debate. He also points out that the Citizen has been critical of him in the past and this is just an attempt to harm him politically. The Speaker continues to end debate on any attempt to change the rules or laws that would limit his power. Finally, a recall motion is published to remove the Speaker. The Speaker closes debate on the recall in the interest of the region. What legal avenues are left for the Citizens of the Region?

Dreadton:

Theoreticals

1. Its Liberation Day. The Ministry of Radio has released a show talking about why this day is important. @Praetor files a criminal complaint because radio shows are non-essential government business. Dreadton points out that Non-essential government business is undefined and that an essential government function is educating the population about the reasons behind Memorial Days. Where would you go to seek guidance on what is essential or non-essential?

2. A citizen opens a thread to change the standing procedures to require a 24 hour period between the opening of debate and a vote, except when an emergency is declared. The thread is closed by the Speaker. He states that such a discussion is not in the interest of the region. The citizen files a R4R. He states that the Speaker violated the rules, as limiting the power of the Speaker is in the interest of the region. The speaker states he has broad leeway in controlling debate. He also points out that the Citizen has been critical of him in the past and this is just an attempt to harm him politically. The Speaker continues to end debate on any attempt to change the rules or laws that would limit his power. Finally, a recall motion is published to remove the Speaker. The Speaker closes debate on the recall in the interest of the region. What legal avenues are left for the Citizens of the Region?

Click to expand...

Thank you for those questions.

Scenario 1
This is an interesting scenario. As outlined above, I would normally seek to apply the plain meaning rule—so I would seek to determine what the plain meaning is. In this case, we are considering the meaning of section 9.3(16) of the Legal Code, which reads as follows:

16. Memorial Days preserve and honor the memory of important historical events. They will be observed by a temporary halt to non-essential government business. Any open votes in the Regional Assembly must be temporarily closed for twenty-four hours, and their length must be extended by the same amount of time it was closed.

Click to expand...

In this case, we are considering whether the radio show in question is a form of "non-essential government business". In this case, the plain meaning of "non-essential" would be "(absolutely) necessary", which prima facie does not clearly validate either side's point. Then, I would look at various sources to contextualise the meaning of the word in light of the facts of the case and essentially create a picture as to how necessary government business must be for it to be considered "essential". Now, I do not want to prejudge any potential case or controversty, so I will not seek to answer as to who is correct in this theoretical scenario, but I will list some of the sources I would consult:

1. The surrounding text of the clause. Specifically, the fact that the law mandates that votes in the RA "be temporarily closed for twenty-four hours" (while these votes are an important part of our democracy) helps us understand to some degree that the requirement to halt non-essential government business and the goal it seeks to achieve, namely to "preserve and honor the memory of important historical events", carries a great deal of importance. It doesn't tell us enough though, especially because the Minister of Radio will presumably claim that his/her activity fits within this purpose of the law, because "educating the population about the reasons behind Memorial Days" is an important or even necessary factor for properly preserving and honouring these events.
2. Case law. By looking at previous cases, one can determine how this Court has historically applied specific laws and whether it has set up definitions and/or tests to determine what conduct is essential. In this case, I searched through the R4R archives and criminal case archives for the terms "memorial" and "essential" and based on those terms could not find any relevant case law.
3. Legislate records. In this case, the legislative records do not provide clarity as to this question.
4. History of Memorial Days. The Court can look at what business continued during prior Memorial Days to determine what the likely purpose of the legislature was and whether this conduct fit within this purpose.

So, overall, I would determine my ruling based on the above factors, but will not prejudge the case by making any comments as to what decision I would ultimately reach.

Scenario 2
It is unclear from the scenario as to whether the R4R has already concluded upon the closure of the debate surrounding the recall motion, but for the sake of argument, I will presume it is still open, either in the period where citizens can file briefs or the period where the Court is considering the matter. Here, we are dealing with a Speaker that is exercising broad powers to an extent that one or more citizens belief those exercises are illegitimate. Due to the alleged pattern of abuse, a citizen sought to recall the Speaker, an attempt that was prevented by the Speaker themselves. In so doing, the citizen probably understands that at this moment, the esteemed halls of the Regional Assembly are not a viable avenue. Therefore, given the citizens do not want to wait until the next election, they can seek interference from the Court. In this case, they can request the Court to expand the scope of the current R4R and where necessary allow for supplemental briefs from citizens, as well as file a criminal complaint under section 1.9(25) of the Legal Code, although I will refrain from prejudging this potential case and as such not comment on the merits of such a compaint.