[Private] March 2023 Term

We need to select a Chief Justice and a Bar Commissioner.

I'm willing to serve as Chief Justice for a full term, but but with Pallaith returning to the bench there may be more competition for the post than last term.

Now that I am finally here, I can weigh in. LD likes being the Bar guy, I see no reason to mess with that.

I of course would be happy to resume my service as Chief Justice, but I do recognize that the two of you have served together for a while. I would also observe that AS was taking care of some important housekeeping that is often overlooked, and he did a fine job of it. He's serious and responsible and perfectly capable of serving in this capacity. Having said that, I am obviously motivated to be here and have my own preference for how to organize things, and I have served in the role for most of my time on the Court, so I need to put myself forward for Chief Justice.

I remain quite willing to keep serving as the Bar guy as put - I don't however have a preference right now as to which of you serves as CJ.

That's 3/3 for LD continuing as Bar Commissioner then.

For CJ I see two ways of deciding. We can go with electoral votes (The default if we can't select one within a week), which would give it to you Pallaith, or we can discuss policy with LD as the swing vote. As I demonstrated at the end of last term I do take the paperwork seriously (It comes with the bureaucratic territory), which is something I would want to keep up to date. I'd also want to keep declassification up to date, with 2 threads at the year-old-mark. In terms of being the outward face of the Court I can't point to specifics, but I think I have shown an attitude of reasonable conduct and ability to backtrack if I err. I would like to avoid appearing to arbitrarily quell dissent or engaging in shouting matches in public, because as I see it that lacks decorum and delegitimises the Court, as much or more than bad rulings can do.
My policies regard administration and the outwards presence because the Chief Justice position shouldn't make one of us 'more judicial' or 'more equal' than the other two (Absent moments of crisis, but I would hope we can avoid those). In the best of worlds we can conduct the Court's business with a high degree of harmony and consensus, and that is incompatible with one Justice lording it over the other two.

I agree with your philosophy on handling the role (I’m not sure who wouldn’t) and wouldn’t handle that any differently myself. If we’re essentially identical on this point, I would suggest experience is the only different factor. Unless you feel we’re not aligned on these things?

If your philosophy is the same then yeah, it comes down to experience and/or vote numbers, though I don't see how experience is decisive when it comes to e.g. archiving or declassifying material. Unless there are assignments to the Chief Justice position that I have missed, I would say I got the hang of it.

Attempted Socialism:

If your philosophy is the same then yeah, it comes down to experience and/or vote numbers, though I don't see how experience is decisive when it comes to e.g. archiving or declassifying material. Unless there are assignments to the Chief Justice position that I have missed, I would say I got the hang of it.

Click to expand...

The experience is for the intangibles, and for the symbolism perhaps. Take the SC for instance, a body that doesn’t have much variation as far as what they do and like the Court often have little to do on any given day. Seniority is still enforced a great deal. Put another way, we both want the role and we both would go about it pretty much the same way. As you said, the concrete duties don’t really require any particular expertise. But because we both want it and I have more experience, I would stake my claim on that. It’s a meaningless thing, it’s like the older brother calling the front seat in the car because he’s older. No practical reason for it, it’s just arbitrary leverage.

Don’t worry about that though, I’ll explain why I’m digging my heels a little on this. I got the feeling from your earlier post you may have seen this as adversarial or some kind of response to my recent displeasure with court rulings. I’m not out for revenge or suggesting I see your service in this role as having been a failure or something that must be stopped. It’s much simpler than that. While we are capable of doing the same things and go about doing them with the same attitude, we wouldn’t execute the things exactly the same way. I have my style and preference and you have yours. It’s not exactly shocking or untoward that I would prefer to do them my way, and I suspect you feel the same and want to continue to do them your way. There’s nothing wrong with that, and there’s nothing wrong with how either of us would actually do the clerical tasks.

I’ll give you some examples: as the originator of the court decisions thread, I have my idea of how to update it, how to name cases, and even some potential ideas for how to expand on it. I’ve updated Discord logs a certain way and would continue to do so. Does it really matter if we have a variation in how the records look or are handled, if you happen to do these things slightly differently? No. But it wouldn’t be my preference. And if I were you I wouldn’t be happy about getting nitpicky feedback about how to do these things from someone who has different ideas. On top of that, I’d rather just do it my way than be the nitpicky guy. That’s all it is. LD can tell you firsthand that there’s no lording over the other justices or throwing Chief Justice weight around on my part when I’ve done this job. I just want to look after my pet project and try to guarantee a little consistency in how records are kept and the Court is organized. If we can see eye to eye on that, then there’s really not much of a reason for me to seek CJ aside from bragging rights and personal pride.

Pallaith:

Don’t worry about that though, I’ll explain why I’m digging my heels a little on this. I got the feeling from your earlier post you may have seen this as adversarial or some kind of response to my recent displeasure with court rulings.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far. I was thinking about how Dreadton split the thread with your criticism first and foremost (Which was inexplicable to me, and seemed arbitrary). Certainly, I was surprised by the level of backlash from you and others to the treaty ruling, You have had the chance to go back and see the back and forth between Dreadton and myself, so you can check to your own satisfaction that the ruling was very much a compromise between Dreadton's position and my own. My thinking was that I had essentially two options because Dreadton preferred unanimity: Negotiate and sign on eventually, or write my minority dissent then and there. I stand by that ruling as a compromise, and with that comes accepting that I own my part of the backlash. However, that doesn't mean that I see the backlash as personal or adversarial -- I have been in national, union, and office politics long enough to know that you shouldn't confuse policy or title with the person, and that critique of policy or the office doesn't have to be personal.

Pallaith:

I just want to look after my pet project and try to guarantee a little consistency in how records are kept and the Court is organized. If we can see eye to eye on that, then there’s really not much of a reason for me to seek CJ aside from bragging rights and personal pride.

Click to expand...

I think we are seeing eye to eye on most things, and regardless of who becomes Chief Justice I'm confident that we'd be able to poke each other and talk it over if ever there is an issue. I would highlight one aspect, though, and that is PR. You have argued that the Court erred in its treaty case decision. As I wrote in a response during the campaign, I see why you did it and I think pursuing legislation was the right move. That still leaves the apparent record of your displeasure with the Court. So would it look adversarial to the public for you to take the Chief Justice title, given the history? I don't know, your votes clearly show it's not a problem for the vast majority, but I can't rule it out for a minority. If you trust my promise that we're seeing eye to eye on what we have discussed so far, then that's a trade-off between avoiding possible controversy and the esteem of the title.

Attempted Socialism:

I wouldn't go that far. I was thinking about how Dreadton split the thread with your criticism first and foremost (Which was inexplicable to me, and seemed arbitrary). Certainly, I was surprised by the level of backlash from you and others to the treaty ruling, You have had the chance to go back and see the back and forth between Dreadton and myself, so you can check to your own satisfaction that the ruling was very much a compromise between Dreadton's position and my own. My thinking was that I had essentially two options because Dreadton preferred unanimity: Negotiate and sign on eventually, or write my minority dissent then and there. I stand by that ruling as a compromise, and with that comes accepting that I own my part of the backlash. However, that doesn't mean that I see the backlash as personal or adversarial -- I have been in national, union, and office politics long enough to know that you shouldn't confuse policy or title with the person, and that critique of policy or the office doesn't have to be personal.

I think we are seeing eye to eye on most things, and regardless of who becomes Chief Justice I'm confident that we'd be able to poke each other and talk it over if ever there is an issue. I would highlight one aspect, though, and that is PR. You have argued that the Court erred in its treaty case decision. As I wrote in a response during the campaign, I see why you did it and I think pursuing legislation was the right move. That still leaves the apparent record of your displeasure with the Court. So would it look adversarial to the public for you to take the Chief Justice title, given the history? I don't know, your votes clearly show it's not a problem for the vast majority, but I can't rule it out for a minority. If you trust my promise that we're seeing eye to eye on what we have discussed so far, then that's a trade-off between avoiding possible controversy and the esteem of the title.

Click to expand...

I'm not concerned with PR on this one - the region is not going to be concerned if I am Chief Justice because of a little criticism of the Court. I first arrived on the Court specifically inspired to clean up somewhat after the Court made yet another annoying case end in a joke.

But you know why I am interested in the role, and what I plan to sink my teeth into as I do my Court business. I will be concerned with developing the rulings index, standardizing its conventions, and seeing the same done with the disclosures. You wish for this to be collaborative, and it certainly will be, whether I am chief or not. As long as I can pursue these things and you will accommodate my effort, I will happily recognize that this time around I am the new guy on the Court and you can proceed with another term as Chief Justice.