Hello, me again. After some consideration, and a little encouragement (thanks guys, you know who you are), I have decided to put myself forward for another term as justice. Even a few days ago it's safe to say this isn't something I was set on doing, but I figured, why not? There's a few decent reasons, the most obvious being, I haven't really had a chance to do anything yet. I spent a term looking for ways to tweak the court and how we do business to try to rectify a litany of concerns I had that I have outlined previously. Well, being on the Court was an eye-opening experience, because I found there was no Easy button to make these problems go away. My biggest conclusion was that if this is the model of Court we prefer, then the big factor in whether it has a good term or bad, and whether cases are handled properly or botched, is the people we choose to sit on the Court.
I did not hear any cases last term. No justice did. I find myself the Chief Justice by virtue of stepping in when the last Chief vacated office. I was involved in a court procedure change designed to make it harder for moderating justices to screw up in the same way we saw when MadJack's guilty verdict was reversed a day later. That is, we explicitly allow justices to extend court time to ensure that litigants actually perform the necessary steps not to lose a case on a technicality. I would have done more with the procedure if I thought it would make a difference, but so much of this comes down to how knowledgeable, careful, and deliberate the various actors in our court dramas can be. If we want to work on that, we have options, some of which I outlined in my RA speech on the Court. But that won't be done from inside the Court, unfortunately.
I ran for justice the first time outlining my thoughts on the judicial system in TNP and how I would like to work on it from within. Obviously I was not able to provide dramatic results, but I did endeavor to continue the conversation and tell you what I learned (as evident by my RA thread). I also shared what my approach would be to hearing cases, and that's probably the most relevant for this time around, because unless we have another quiet term, I will probably get some opportunity to do some justicing.
I think it's silly to have to promise I will be around, follow my oath and maintain office. I get why other candidates do that, and sometimes even I think it's kind of funny, but anyone elected in this region is essentially implying these things when they step up, otherwise why would you vote for them in the first place? Instead I ask that you consider my judicial philosophy, best summed up in these quotes from my previous campaign:
Some of you feared that if given the opportunity, I would seek to completely transform the Court and change how it was made and chosen, likely by making it subject to Delegate appointment. Setting aside the fact a justice has no ability to do such things through fiat, I can confidently say that after serving on the Court, I am convinced that the same problem will exist no matter how justices are selected. The RA will need to decide if it wants to change standards for the Court, and its justices and prosecutors. If all they do is change how the sausage is made without trying to improve the ingredients, then we're not going to get very far. Since it comes down to whether a person can competently serve in this role or not, I put myself forward as a known quantity, someone who puts in good work and sticks with the commitments he makes. You know I can write a court opinion, even if you've never thought about me doing it, or seen me do it elsewhere (though I have). And thanks to this campaign, you even know what kind of opinion I would write, and what would motivate me as someone presiding over a case.
Earlier I said that there's a few decent reasons why I should commit to another run. What I said in the previous paragraph is one of them: there's a lot of options in this election, way more than the one that swept me in here. I want people to have clear, distinct choices, and because I believe this philosophy is what the Court needs, I want to make sure that the region has a chance to advance it by keeping me on the Court. Because that's another reason right there: I am already here, I know more than I did a term ago about what it's like in the Court, and trying to keep the Court and how it may be improved near the top of issues for TNPers to have on their mind has been a big part of my involvement in the region as of late. I feel it would be a shame for me to shrug and say something along the lines of "forget it TNP, it's Chinatown" and leave it at that. To the extent that me being in the race keeps these points of concern on the region's radar, and that I and other candidates may have to think about them and discuss them, I want to be in this race.
Finally, as I said in my last campaign: this is a game. We like having elections because it's fun. What can be more fun than what feels like arena combat with a dozen candidates? I can't resist jumping into that. And with other current and former justices also in the running, I'm in good company. Let's really make this as challenging for us candidates, and for you the voter, as we can, because why not? This thread is open for your questions, comments, and feedback, whether it be snarky, sincerely funny, or try hard.
I did not hear any cases last term. No justice did. I find myself the Chief Justice by virtue of stepping in when the last Chief vacated office. I was involved in a court procedure change designed to make it harder for moderating justices to screw up in the same way we saw when MadJack's guilty verdict was reversed a day later. That is, we explicitly allow justices to extend court time to ensure that litigants actually perform the necessary steps not to lose a case on a technicality. I would have done more with the procedure if I thought it would make a difference, but so much of this comes down to how knowledgeable, careful, and deliberate the various actors in our court dramas can be. If we want to work on that, we have options, some of which I outlined in my RA speech on the Court. But that won't be done from inside the Court, unfortunately.
I ran for justice the first time outlining my thoughts on the judicial system in TNP and how I would like to work on it from within. Obviously I was not able to provide dramatic results, but I did endeavor to continue the conversation and tell you what I learned (as evident by my RA thread). I also shared what my approach would be to hearing cases, and that's probably the most relevant for this time around, because unless we have another quiet term, I will probably get some opportunity to do some justicing.
I think it's silly to have to promise I will be around, follow my oath and maintain office. I get why other candidates do that, and sometimes even I think it's kind of funny, but anyone elected in this region is essentially implying these things when they step up, otherwise why would you vote for them in the first place? Instead I ask that you consider my judicial philosophy, best summed up in these quotes from my previous campaign:
Some of you feared that if given the opportunity, I would seek to completely transform the Court and change how it was made and chosen, likely by making it subject to Delegate appointment. Setting aside the fact a justice has no ability to do such things through fiat, I can confidently say that after serving on the Court, I am convinced that the same problem will exist no matter how justices are selected. The RA will need to decide if it wants to change standards for the Court, and its justices and prosecutors. If all they do is change how the sausage is made without trying to improve the ingredients, then we're not going to get very far. Since it comes down to whether a person can competently serve in this role or not, I put myself forward as a known quantity, someone who puts in good work and sticks with the commitments he makes. You know I can write a court opinion, even if you've never thought about me doing it, or seen me do it elsewhere (though I have). And thanks to this campaign, you even know what kind of opinion I would write, and what would motivate me as someone presiding over a case.
Earlier I said that there's a few decent reasons why I should commit to another run. What I said in the previous paragraph is one of them: there's a lot of options in this election, way more than the one that swept me in here. I want people to have clear, distinct choices, and because I believe this philosophy is what the Court needs, I want to make sure that the region has a chance to advance it by keeping me on the Court. Because that's another reason right there: I am already here, I know more than I did a term ago about what it's like in the Court, and trying to keep the Court and how it may be improved near the top of issues for TNPers to have on their mind has been a big part of my involvement in the region as of late. I feel it would be a shame for me to shrug and say something along the lines of "forget it TNP, it's Chinatown" and leave it at that. To the extent that me being in the race keeps these points of concern on the region's radar, and that I and other candidates may have to think about them and discuss them, I want to be in this race.
Finally, as I said in my last campaign: this is a game. We like having elections because it's fun. What can be more fun than what feels like arena combat with a dozen candidates? I can't resist jumping into that. And with other current and former justices also in the running, I'm in good company. Let's really make this as challenging for us candidates, and for you the voter, as we can, because why not? This thread is open for your questions, comments, and feedback, whether it be snarky, sincerely funny, or try hard.
