[Private] Paperwork for July 2023 term

Attempted Socialism

Attempted Socialism

Deputy Minister
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Attempted_Socialism
Discord
Kim Philby#9330
Alright, with the election over let's get the paperwork sorted. I'll see if I can take care of the declassification of 1-year old materiel tonight. I'll also copy the Discord material to a thread so it's there for later declassification.

By nr of votes Pallaith is in line for the position as Chief Justice. Do you want it? I can continue as CJ, but won't fight for it.

I made the argument that reforms are needed, and outlined a few steps we can take. Is that something you'd want to talk over? I believe it would be most effective if it comes as proposals from a unanimous Court.
 
I think reforms should be in a separate topic, and be carefully thought through: some things are things the Court can do, some things are things the Regional Assembly can do, and some important things may be things the Bar Commission can do.

Regarding the Chief Justice position, I will wait for whether @Pallaith wants it before opining.

If you can take care of declassification @Attempted Socialism we will greatly appreciate it. I certainly have my hands full finishing up TNP v St George at the moment.
 
Eluvatar:
I think reforms should be in a separate topic, and be carefully thought through: some things are things the Court can do, some things are things the Regional Assembly can do, and some important things may be things the Bar Commission can do.
Click to expand...
Probably should have made a separate thread, yeah. Will take it there, and elaborate a bit, because I know that it has to be carefully thought through, and I did not think of it as the Court acting unilaterally, but rather that if we agree on suggestions, we put them forward as a unanimous Court, either as changes to the laws, or procedures shared between us and the Bar Commission etc. Sorry if I was unclear on that point.
 
I would be happy to accept the role of Chief Justice again. And I echo the sentiment reforms should have their own topic. Do note that there isn’t much we can do on our end to make that happen, so this may have to end up being a legislative endeavor that we’re key participants in.
 
Eluvatar:
@Pallaith I'm happy to vote to make you CJ, but please do allow us our attempt to strategize as a court on how to improve the situation.
Click to expand...
I’m not disallowing an attempt to strategize. I just felt that strategy warranted its own thread but I guess it’s not a big deal if it happens here. I thought that was where this idea was going, if you want to keep going here have at it.
 
Pallaith:
I would be happy to accept the role of Chief Justice again
Click to expand...
Just to check, do you want it or would you accept it? I would prefer to continue as CJ, but I recognise that in terms of votes, I'm third in the queue, so as I said, I won't fight to keep the title (Especially as I lack good arguments for why I should -- 'it fuels my ego' and 'I am happy to do the paperwork' aren't particularly convincing for me, so probably not you either).
 
Attempted Socialism:
Just to check, do you want it or would you accept it? I would prefer to continue as CJ, but I recognise that in terms of votes, I'm third in the queue, so as I said, I won't fight to keep the title (Especially as I lack good arguments for why I should -- 'it fuels my ego' and 'I am happy to do the paperwork' aren't particularly convincing for me, so probably not you either).
Click to expand...
Both. But if this is your last ride and you want to see these things through this term, I am not averse to having you stay on in that role. We settled last term the things that I was concerned with and as long as I can continue to take point on those things I don’t need to be Chief to do it, so my position on that hasn’t changed.
 
Pallaith:
Both. But if this is your last ride and you want to see these things through this term, I am not averse to having you stay on in that role. We settled last term the things that I was concerned with and as long as I can continue to take point on those things I don’t need to be Chief to do it, so my position on that hasn’t changed.
Click to expand...
I had planned on not running, until the events of the last months convinced me otherwise, so this has to be my last ride this time around.
And yeah, I would make sure to not be in your way.
 
On a different note, as the trial of St George is over, I would like access to the Special Chambers restored, and I believe that Pallaith's will also need to be restored.
 
I can move the St George topic to the Extra Special chambers that I can't even see, temporarily? Until it's time to declassify, I imagine.
 
You can put it in the forum where we store threads that are to be declassified in the future. I don’t see why sitting justices should be precluded from viewing topics for a case that already finished. The inability to read the thread is to enforce recusals, since the justice can’t act as a justice in the case. But the case is over. Otherwise it would be difficult to handle it for the same reason AS outlined.
 
Pallaith:
You can put it in the forum where we store threads that are to be declassified in the future. I don’t see why sitting justices should be precluded from viewing topics for a case that already finished. The inability to read the thread is to enforce recusals, since the justice can’t act as a justice in the case. But the case is over. Otherwise it would be difficult to handle it for the same reason AS outlined.
Click to expand...
I'm imagining if it gets appealed it could matter. It should be unlikely for an appeal to come next term, however.
 
I'm bumping here because, with a fairly active court examiner, there's a possibility that one of us may be recused off a case, and if that happens we will need the special chambers.
 
Please note the following changes to prior case titles, to better conform to a uniform standard and to be consistent with how cases were previously named:

18. On the Constitutionality of Prohibiting Sedition has been renamed to On Prohibiting Sedition
22. On the Constitutionality of the Minor Error Clause has been renamed to On the Minor Error Clause
24. On the Constitutionality of the Intelligence Exception to the Freedom of Information Act has been renamed to On the Intelligence Exception to the Freedom of Information Act
36. On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the Regional Assembly has been renamed to On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the RA
40. On Promptness and the Time at which Regional Assembly Membership Begins and Ends has been renamed to On Promptness and the Time at which RA Membership Begins and Ends
41. On the Physical Representation of Outdated Rulings on Requests for Review has been renamed to On Recognizing Outdated Rulings
42. On the Recusal of Justice Funkadelia from an Ongoing Request for Review has been renamed to On the Recusal of Justice Funkadelia
44. On Regional Assembly Oversight of the North Pacific Armed Forces has been renamed to On RA Oversight of the North Pacific Armed Forces
49. On a Regional Officer Banning Nations during NationStates Events has been renamed to On Regional Officers Banning Nations during NationStates Events
52. On the Ability of the Court to Review RA Proposals has been renamed to On Court Review of Prior Court Rulings
53. On the Validity of a Previous Ruling has been renamed to On the Reconsideration of Court Review of Prior Court Rulings
58. On the Sentence issued by the Court in the Case of The North Pacific v. Whole India has been renamed to On the Authentication of Images in Criminal Trials
60. On the Form of the Oath of a Delegate has been renamed to On the Form of the Delegate's Oath
62. On the Constitutionality of Vague Laws and Gross Misconduct has been renamed to On Vague Laws and Responsible Action
65. On the Constitutionality of the Reject Fascism Act has been renamed to On the Restriction of Citizenship Due to Illegal Affiliation
69. On the Delegate's Authority to Issue Sanctions has been renamed to On the Definition of Treaties and the Delegate's Authority to Sanction Residents

Assuming after your review you agree to these changes, I would have this change log included with the formal announcement of the overhaul of the court rulings page, which now features a table that adds additional information that the OP previously did not have. That table is still in the process of being created, so I leave it to the Chief when he would like this announcement to be formalized. I would suggest waiting a bit, as there's a possibility additional titles are renamed. For instance, I went and standardized the use of RA, just as I would continue to use WA after both were spelled out in their first case, and I am considering doing something similar with the Speaker cases by focusing on the Speaker's specific powers, which may lead to modifying other rulings that focus on processes or powers of specific offices - but I am still mulling that over.

Considering the Court is often ruling on the constitutionality of things, having that in the title seems unnecessary. Generally the practice over the years has been to move away from being super specific unless the case truly was zoomed in on a specific thing (such as a ban of an individual or a specific clause that was in question), and focus on what the broader legal principle at stake was. I believe many of the cases we will be announcing in the near future will be "On the Reconsideration of..." but to the extent these cases establish greater principles that are broader in scope, we can mention that too - there is precedent for having case titles that mention multiple major topics, most recently the renamed sanctions case.
 
I'm good with all the renamed titles. If the table is a work in progress then let's wait and see if we can make just one announcement, but if it drags out then I would suggest we post first the renamed list and the table at a later date.
On a similar note, if you're making larger changes to the Court Rulings page, I would ask you to review the instructions on updating that page and see if that needs updating as well. Generally removing a superfluous line like 'on the constitutionality of' could just be added to the template, but if there is a table that needs messing with then I would say we need to leave instructions for the next Justices.
 
Attempted Socialism:
I'm good with all the renamed titles. If the table is a work in progress then let's wait and see if we can make just one announcement, but if it drags out then I would suggest we post first the renamed list and the table at a later date.
On a similar note, if you're making larger changes to the Court Rulings page, I would ask you to review the instructions on updating that page and see if that needs updating as well. Generally removing a superfluous line like 'on the constitutionality of' could just be added to the template, but if there is a table that needs messing with then I would say we need to leave instructions for the next Justices.
Click to expand...
The thing about naming the cases is that we can actually do that as early as our initial ruling in a R4R. As long as we apply the same general rules to how we name it, it should be consistent with the rulings page when published. But this definitely sounds like something that could be folded into the style guide we’re already discussing.

I think I could update that thread with an explanation of what the various columns are meant to include.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top