Okay. I will vote for you!
Yay.
Not enough experience imo
Okay.
I endorse this product and or service
Great.
It's actually gonna be tough to vote given we have four highly qualified candidates for three positions.
Good luck.
How would you handle a justice who’s activity , while enough to avoid the automatic removal, but who’s lack of activity or participation delays the court from accomplishing its duties?
Do you think participants in a trail have a duty to instruct the court on how to do its job?
Above all else I hope the justices can communicate with each other even if they aren't necessarily communicating with the region in general. If that is a chronic issue then I believe it is incumbent on whichever justices are more present and communicative to take steps to elicit response from the justice(s) who are not being responsive. The nuclear option is, of course, recall, and I believe the justices who witness a sudden collapse in activity or response from any of their number ultimately will have to speak up if it calls for it. I don't think that's the first resort, the justices should police each other and rouse any who are sleeping, and maybe even be willing to point the finger at the culprit if they get public questions about a delay. The Court is often sleepy and people are used to delays, so they don't insist on a higher standard, and the justices know this and are willing to let the time pass and cut each other slack. It starts with them not doing that anymore, and making an active, swift, and engaged Court the norm and not the exception. But as far as actual levers, I don't think the Court has a lot of those it can employ outside of the informal communication methods.
Participants in a trial do not have a duty to instruct the Court on how to do its job. I can see litigants arguing their case and citing a justice's failure to follow proper procedure as part of their argument, I can see them giving the Court a heads up if they are missing something important, but there is no actual duty to do so. Prosecutors and defense counsel are not officers charged with oversight of the Court - if anything, the Court has some oversight over them. Note that Court procedures currently contemplates an option for the justice to extend timetables for the trial in order to point out or elicit cooperation from litigants so that they complete their submissions or perform the steps outlined in Court procedure - this was done to encourage justices to help litigants avoid the trap that happened in the past, where prosecutors failed to complete their submission of evidence and the ruling had to be thrown out. For the litigants to do this with a justice would be odd. I would expect one side of the trial to be inclined to remind justices of errors they are making, and the other to be silent, but that's just common sense. If a litigant sees an opening because a justice missed something in procedure and the entire trial is threatened by this error, surely the other side can see the same opening and defend against it. It's possible only one side sees it, or no sides see it, and the outcome will be what it is as a result. As annoying as it is to see a trial derailed because of a procedural error, that is one of the pitfalls with our system of justice, and good-natured or mean-spirited these actions may be, they are not precluded by our system and they are not an expectation we should place on the litigants, who (especially defense counsel) are not your typical sworn officers in our laws, but have a very limited purpose.
Don’t you have enough to do?
Guess not.
