Nutmeg for Justice - Inexperienced, Maybe; Willing to Learn, Absolutely

Nutmeg The Squirrel

Nutmeg The Squirrel

Professional Lesbian
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
They/Her/It
TNP Nation
The_Anddoran_Commune
Discord
NutmegTheSquirrel#8941
Roughly six months ago, I ran for the position of Vice Delegate. My campaign was torn apart for a lack of endorsements and experience, so I'm here to try something new. I'm moving towards the Judiciary, an organ of this region that I've read a lot about, but have never really had a chance to actually engage with, in an attempt to have a chance at a different aspect of TNP's workings.
I'm bringing with me not buckets of experience like my opponents, but a deep fascination with the mechanisms of our laws, and willingness to learn as much as I can about them.
This is not to say that I don't know what I'm doing. I've read through our laws quite thoroughly, read transcripts of previous court cases, and even written the Legal Code and Court System of another region.

If you put your faith in me, I will give it my all, and show you that sometimes you just need to let people learn in the deep end.
 
What have you learned thus far from your own reading of previous court cases? In particular, are there any court rulings that you disagree with, or that you have a different interpretation of?
 
Lord Nwahs:
What have you learned thus far from your own reading of previous court cases? In particular, are there any court rulings that you disagree with, or that you have a different interpretation of?
Click to expand...
I've always had a bit of a bone to pick with the Court's reasoning for Grosseschnauzer's case of innocence in TNP v. Grosseschnauzer.
I must admit, criminal law and justice has been what I've read the most about.
TNP v. Whole India and the accompanying R4R were good lessons for me about evidence recognition and submission, and a lot of the earlier cases, especially cases such as TNP v. Jal, Mark 2 have been a good lesson in how to try and run a trial smoothly.
In terms of what I've learnt from reading R4Rs, it's all very technical language, something I'm working on being able to use.

Picairn:
What is your judicial philosophy?
Click to expand...
I am a big fan of equality before the law, that's been a driving principle behind everything I've written, and my interpretations of it.
 
What would you do if you were a Justice and saw that a request for review that looked like this has been posted in the Court’s (both in terms of what practical steps you would take and how you might ultimately decide on it (if you can)):
1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

The Delegate suppressed my friends posts and then banned them when they asked why they got suppressed

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

It is against free speech and not democratic to ban them when all they did was ask about what the delegate was doing the delegate should be allowed to be asked what they are doing with there power without being able to ban someone

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

I don’t know

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.

My friend has been banned and if I post about it I think the delegate would ban me too and I don’t think that is fair

5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.

Yes the delegate should follow the law and free speech

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

No
Click to expand...
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
What would you do if you were a Justice and saw that a request for review that looked like this has been posted in the Court’s (both in terms of what practical steps you would take and how you might ultimately decide on it (if you can)):
Click to expand...
I would accept the Request for Review, as the Bill of Rights entitles the banned nation to present their ban for Judicial Review. I, as the Justice who accepted the R4R, would become moderating Justice, and I would invite the Delegate to provide a brief.
If the Delegate was able to show that their ban was justified, then I would rule that, similar to the Court's ruling On The Regional Ban of Siberia Union, the Delegate had in no way violated the Bill of Rights in their moderation duties of the Regional Message Board.
Of course, should the Delegate be unable to justify the nation's banning, or did not follow the procedure outlined in the Legal Code, I would, given a brief by the petitioner and/or citizens, rule that the Delegate had misused their powers in regards to moderation and responded with an inappropriate amount of force.

Robespierre:
How am I supposed to believe that you're an actual candidate and not just a hive mind of squirrels in a fancy suit?
Click to expand...
The Squirrels decline to make a comment
 
I'd like to quickly amend the above statement, as it was pointed out that it needs clarification.

Nutmeg The Squirrel:
I would accept the Request for Review, as the Bill of Rights entitles the banned nation to present their ban for Judicial Review.
Click to expand...
I am accepting the petitioner as a representative of the banned nation, presenting the R4R on their behalf, as the banned nation has the right to review.
 
I appreciate that, if elected, you’ll likely be newer to the Court than your fellow Justices but would you want to try drafting any of the Court’s opinions in reviews or criminal cases (if there are any in need of drafting)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top