[Private] R4R "Advisory Opinion of the Court of the North Pacific"

Pallaith

Pallaith

TNPer
-
-
-
-
Once again, the Court Examiner has brought forth an R4R challenging a prior Court decision, this time the single advisory opinion. Unlike the others he has recently submitted, this one is straight up challenging the decision on the grounds it was an improper action. As standing is a given, I have accepted this one as well and the period for briefs has been opened for 5 days.
 
I hope it is not too premature, but having had some time to dive into judicial matters this evening, I took the liberty of drafting an opinion for this R4R. It's not cleaning up an old defunct ruling like the last few, but it is in my view as equally a slam dunk as those other ones. It was my view that given this was a one-off and not meant to be considered precedent, what we would do here is not overturn it so much as invalidate it, so I used that wording.

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by TlomzKrano on Advisory Opinions
Opinion drafted by Justice Pallaith​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by TlomzKrano

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Constitution of The North Pacific.

Article 4: The Court
1. The Court will try all criminal cases and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions.
2. Reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is a compelling regional interest in resolving it.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Chapter 5: Precedent and Appeals
Section 1: Precedent
1. All official Court decisions are legally binding on the Court as a whole as well as each individual Justice.
2. Prior decisions made by the Court, regardless of its composition at the time, must continue to be obeyed by the Court and by each individual Justice until and unless their validity is formally overturned in a new request for review.
3. The Court is a reactive body. Without any such request, the Court may not proactively overturn previous rulings.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the prior ruling by the Court Advisory Opinion on the Role of the Attorney General.


The Court opines the following:

On Standing
The petitioner is the Court Examiner, and enjoys universal standing for all questions before this Court. There is no question of proper standing in this case.

On Advisory Opinions
In the entire history of this Court under the current Constitution, there has only been a single time that this Court has rendered an advisory opinion, Advisory Opinion on the Role of the Attorney General. In that instance the Court was compelled to speak up, despite receiving no petition from an affected party, and the fact that it was the single time this occurred underscores the extraordinary moment the Court felt it was responding to. This extraordinary step carried as much weight as it did not only because it was not the norm, but also because when the Court renders an opinion on the law, it carries an inherent legitimacy and weight that simple remarks in citizen spaces or the Regional Assembly simply do not. The Court knew this and never rendered such an opinion again, nor did it refer to this opinion in any subsequent case. Nevertheless, this opinion is listed with all of the others, which do carry the weight of precedent, and as was intended when this opinion was issued, the Court is quite persuasive and arguing for a very particular way of looking at the law in the advisory opinion.

The petitioner asks us to examine this opinion, and to evaluate whether it was even possible for the Court to issue an advisory opinion in the first place. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that the clause that establishes the Court’s power of review restricts the compelling interest provision to questions of standing, rather than allowing the compelling interest to also allow the Court to disregard standing entirely and take matters into its own hands. The Court intended to send a strong message in its sole previous advisory opinion, and a major part of why that move had the impact it did was because it disregarded the very clear lines that the Court has been careful to follow ever since. The Court did not have the authority or the capacity to make such an opinion even at the time that it made it. Furthermore, an advisory opinion done by the Court’s own initiative is against the Court’s own procedures, which mandate that it be a reactive body. And an advisory opinion, even if divorced from a particular legal question or overturning existing law, nevertheless is an official Court decision and remains binding on justices. Such opinions create a problem, as they can be fairly said to be intended not to be taken as precedent, but nevertheless stand shoulder to shoulder with other case law that is binding and must be considered in subsequent reviews. Given the Constitution does not empower the Court to make such opinions, and it is the Court’s own practice not to do so, the best course is to state clearly that such opinions cannot be delivered and therefore cannot be considered when following existing precedent in deciding the outcome of requests for review.

The justices who make up this Court may from time to time feel compelled to speak out on issues of legal concern, or to challenge our region’s officials when they feel those officials are failing to properly discharge their duties. The members of this Court are still members of the Regional Assembly, and citizens of this region, and have many avenues to express these concerns. At worst, a Justice may find those concerns so compelling that they necessitate their recusal from any such issues that may find their way in front of this Court, so that they may more effectively speak on those issues and advocate for those issues outside of this Court. No matter how great a concern may be for any or all of the justices serving on the Court, it is never appropriate for the Court to use its authority, its legally binding and weighty voice, as a means to advocate for a particular issue. The Court is reactive, not proactive.

Holding
We find that the Court does not have the power to deliver advisory opinions in the absence of a properly filed request for review by an affected party or by someone else when there is a compelling regional interest in considering the request. We also affirm the petitioner’s argument, and find that the compelling regional interest consideration is intended to establish an exception to standing in requests for reviews, and is not a license for the Court to engage in reviews without a request from outside the Court. Accordingly, we invalidate the existing advisory opinion.
 
Last edited:
I am very busy the next few days, but I will do my best to give this a careful reading and comment on it. At a cursory glance it looks right.
 
I like the invalidate phrasing. That would distinguish it nicely from overturned or defunct rulings. I'll come back with more substantial comments, but as with Eluvatar it looks good at a glance.
 
I have edited my draft opinion to conform with the style guide we are developing, and the other opinions I have drafted. I hope you can have another look and we can finalize our take on this too.
 
Pallaith:
Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by TlomzKrano on Advisory Opinions
Opinion drafted by Justice Pallaith​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by TlomzKrano

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Constitution of The North Pacific.



The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Court Rules and Procedures.



The Court took into consideration the prior ruling by the Court Advisory Opinion on the Role of the Attorney General.


The Court opines the following:

On Standing
The petitioner is the Court Examiner, and enjoys universal standing for all questions before this Court. There is no question of proper standing in this case.

On Advisory Opinions
In the entire history of this Court under the current Constitution, there has only been a single time that this Court has rendered an advisory opinion, Advisory Opinion on the Role of the Attorney General. In that instance the Court was compelled to speak up, despite receiving no petition from an affected party, and the fact that it was the single time this occurred underscores the extraordinary moment the Court felt it was responding to. This extraordinary step carried as much weight as it did not only because it was not the norm, but also because when the Court renders an opinion on the law, it carries an inherent legitimacy and weight that simple remarks in citizen spaces or the Regional Assembly simply do not. The Court knew this and never rendered such an opinion again, nor did it refer to this opinion in any subsequent case. Nevertheless, this opinion is listed with all of the others, which do carry the weight of precedent, and as was intended when this opinion was issued, the Court is quite persuasive and arguing for a very particular way of looking at the law in the advisory opinion.

The petitioner asks us to examine this opinion, and to evaluate whether it was even possible for the Court to issue an advisory opinion in the first place. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that the clause that establishes the Court’s power of review restricts the compelling interest provision to questions of standing, rather than allowing the compelling interest to also allow the Court to disregard standing entirely and take matters into its own hands. The Court intended to send a strong message in its sole previous advisory opinion, and a major part of why that move had the impact it did was because it disregarded the very clear lines that the Court has been careful to follow ever since. The Court did not have the authority or the capacity to make such an opinion even at the time that it made it. Furthermore, an advisory opinion done by the Court’s own initiative is against the Court’s own procedures, which mandate that it be a reactive body. And an advisory opinion, even if divorced from a particular legal question or overturning existing law, nevertheless is an official Court decision and remains binding on justices. Such opinions create a problem, as they can be fairly said to be intended not to be taken as precedent, but nevertheless stand shoulder to shoulder with other case law that is binding and must be considered in subsequent reviews. Given the Constitution does not empower the Court to make such opinions, and it is the Court’s own practice not to do so, the best course is to state clearly that such opinions cannot be delivered and therefore cannot be considered when following existing precedent in deciding the outcome of requests for review.

The justices who make up this Court may from time to time feel compelled to speak out on issues of legal concern, or to challenge our region’s officials when they feel those officials are failing to properly discharge their duties. The members of this Court are still members of the Regional Assembly, and citizens of this region, and have many avenues to express these concerns. At worst, a Justice may find those concerns so compelling that they necessitate their recusal from any such issues that may find their way in front of this Court, so that they may more effectively speak on those issues and advocate for those issues outside of this Court. No matter how great a concern may be for any or all of the justices serving on the Court, it is never appropriate for the Court to use its authority, its legally binding and weighty voice, as a means to advocate for a particular issue. The Court is reactive, not proactive.

Holding
We find that the Court does not have the power to deliver advisory opinions in the absence of a properly filed request for review by an affected party or by someone else when there is a compelling regional interest in considering the request. We also affirm the petitioner’s argument, and find that the compelling regional interest consideration is intended to establish an exception to standing in requests for reviews, and is not a license for the Court to engage in reviews without a request from outside the Court. Accordingly, we invalidate the existing advisory opinion.
Click to expand...

Should we stipulate striking through the advisory opinion?

No other notes.
 
Eluvatar:

Should we stipulate striking through the advisory opinion?

No other notes.
Click to expand...
You mean by adopting the language about strike through tags for historical preservation? I think we have to decide if we always want to do that, in which case yes we should here too, or if we don’t need to do that every time, in which case such language should be removed from the other rulings we recently drafted.
 
Pallaith:
You mean by adopting the language about strike through tags for historical preservation? I think we have to decide if we always want to do that, in which case yes we should here too, or if we don’t need to do that every time, in which case such language should be removed from the other rulings we recently drafted.
Click to expand...
I thought about this. This is like overturning old rulings. No need for the strike through language here I would say.
 
So, when we overturn, we don't strike? Or when we overturn, we don't need to explicitly say we should strike? Or what?
 
Eluvatar:
So, when we overturn, we don't strike? Or when we overturn, we don't need to explicitly say we should strike? Or what?
Click to expand...
The strike through happens when rulings are overturned or defunct. The difference is we have the language about strike through and preserving the ruling for historical purposes in defunct cases, but we just flat out say we overturn the old rulings. I think it’s important for the language of these cases to differentiate the two scenarios. Invalidate was the word I chose for this particular decision, as it’s an advisory opinion, so we’re not strictly overturning it.

We only had one defunct ruling up to this point and it had the strike through language, whereas we have had many overturned cases which did not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top