Just a Man who wants to be Just a Justice

[Just a Lore]

Hello, Artist formerly known as Lord Lore here throwing myself into the battle for the courts. I stand by my long history of work with the court and to with my long standing policy of not making campaign promises because of my deeply held belief that the court should never throw itself into possible conflicts by making statements during campaigns that could be made out to be potential prejudice to those who might stand before the court.

I open up the thread to those who may or may not have questions or comments.

~Just a Lore, Just a Potential Justice.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Would you intend to seek selection as the Bar Commissioner chosen from the Justices?

If so: what do you think would be an appropriate way for the Bar Commission to establish the acceptability and competence of counsel; what provision would you make for managing the membership of the bar, such as around the removal of counsel, beyond the prohibition on those subject to criminal sentence; and, how do you think you will go about choosing a Court Examiner?

 

[Kaschovia]

Best of luck in the election, Lore! Just one question so far.

Could you expand a bit more upon the statements made in the first paragraph about campaign promises? I'd like to understand a little better what the specific instances or experiences are from which those beliefs have been formed.

 

[Pallaith]

Lore, you just can't quit this huh?

How do you feel about universal standing? We have it back now with the new law, in the hands of the court examiner. Do you think we needed universal standing to come back for r4rs? Would that have changed any of the previous declinations we’ve seen since the AGORA Act passed? Or would those still not have happened?

Have we trivialized r4rs with some of the recent ones, or are those examples of the kind of questions we should be asking more often?

Do you think there's such a thing as taking casual language and "common sense" approaches to judicial opinions a little too far? I would note that you have written a few opinions hat stand out for their brevity but also their lack of formality and consistency with how other opinions were crafted. In all your years on the Court, have you perhaps neglected a bit of judicial style with your writing, and might that be worth improving on if you return to the Court?

In your opinion, have our laws changed adequately to address the issue at the heart in your famous decision that restricted the NPA's ability to participate in joint operations?

 

[Simone]

I think you are well qualified. Best of luck

 

[Just a Lore]

Best of luck in the election, Lore! Just one question so far.

Could you expand a bit more upon the statements made in the first paragraph about campaign promises? I'd like to understand a little better what the specific instances or experiences are from which those beliefs have been formed.

Some people just like to give specifics on scenarios that could potentially be given before the court and etc. You could call me a little old school in that I believe that the position of Justice is 100% a position of trust and should be given to the candidate that you believe whole heartedly will rule based upon the rules as they exist and not based upon personal beliefs or as part of an agenda.

Lore, you just can't quit this huh?

How do you feel about universal standing? We have it back now with the new law, in the hands of the court examiner. Do you think we needed universal standing to come back for r4rs? Would that have changed any of the previous declinations we’ve seen since the AGORA Act passed? Or would those still not have happened?

Have we trivialized r4rs with some of the recent ones, or are those examples of the kind of questions we should be asking more often?

Do you think there's such a thing as taking casual language and "common sense" approaches to judicial opinions a little too far? I would note that you have written a few opinions hat stand out for their brevity but also their lack of formality and consistency with how other opinions were crafted. In all your years on the Court, have you perhaps neglected a bit of judicial style with your writing, and might that be worth improving on if you return to the Court?

In your opinion, have our laws changed adequately to address the issue at the heart in your famous decision that restricted the NPA's ability to participate in joint operations?

1.) I honestly think that standing has largely been used as a cudgel by the court to side step creating precedent and kicking the can down the line. Universal standing in the hands of an individual is a band-aid on a larger wound that I believe would be fixed with more loose standing.

A good example of this is in the last R4R before the court. I believe the court erred in denying the request and using standing as a method to do it. There is a genuine confusion in the law and the person making the request was an individual who was possibly forced in the course of their work required to commit an illegal act. I believe this genuinely created standing but the court choose to take an extremely narrow interpretation of standing. And in doing so kicked the can.

2.) I think more R4Rs is a fundamentally good thing because it create a binding precedent on the laws as they are written and that by it's very nature is a good thing because it gives the Regional Assembly an actual real life test for the laws they pass and allow them to fix problems in the laws and therefor gives the citizens a prime opportunity to make better laws with less holes.

3.) I wouldn't say that my rulings were "casual" or "common sense" I seriously believe that opinions should be easily read by any citizen it should not take an hour with a cup of coffee and a dictionary for the average citizen to understand the meat and potatoes of an opinion. And I would also like to say that of all the ruling that I have authored not one of them have had a justice issue a minority opinion and they have ALL been open to drafting and revisions by my fellow members of the court and have been signed off unanimously each time.


4.) I believe that answering that last question would violate my promise to never give specifics about things that might end up before the court. To give an answer here would be in effect to me being conflicted in such a judgement before the court as it would show I have made a decision on the laws outside the scope of the review.

 

[Just a Lore]

Would you intend to seek selection as the Bar Commissioner chosen from the Justices?

If so: what do you think would be an appropriate way for the Bar Commission to establish the acceptability and competence of counsel; what provision would you make for managing the membership of the bar, such as around the removal of counsel, beyond the prohibition on those subject to criminal sentence; and, how do you think you will go about choosing a Court Examiner?

I would not be opposed to being the court's representative to the commission. Personally what I would believe my focus would be on those with the drive to want the examiner spot and someone who I believe would be proactive in the duty to bring things to the court. Someone to seek out potential problems and guide those who have been wronged through the process of the court or if they are not willing or able to champion the potential wrong through the court so it doesn't happen again.

And especially someone who is willing to throw their names in the ring on legitimate reviews that are thrown out simply on the backs of nothing but a potential shaky standing.