- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Attempted_Socialism
- Discord
- Kim Philby#9330
I offer my service as Justice once again. The last Court term has been rather more quiet than several of the preceding. This is due to Tlomz, as Court Examiner, having worked through a backlog of cases that those previous Courts were asked to examine. That’s not inherently good or bad; instead I wish to take the opportunity to highlight one case that has been instrumental to resolving a large part of that backlog, namely ‘On Defunct Rulings’. ‘On Defunct Rulings’ is my proudest moment on the Court. It established language for cases that were decided correctly at the time, but where the law has since been changed in such a way that the ruling would not be correct today. Setting out a proper test of that scenario and making clear the subordination of case law contra positive law from the Regional Assembly in event of contradiction were not easy to get exactly right, but I think we did it. I am thus glad to see that many of those who have written briefs since have engaged positively with it, citing it, or otherwise finding it instructive. Subsequent Courts have also seen fit to use the language and reaffirm the central conclusions of the ruling.
This ruling is something I get into in my interview on NBS.
My last campaign was titled ‘Reforms are needed’ and I made the case for several changes. Some of those got implemented, while others fell by the wayside. I believe a time of calm is useful because it allows us to reevaluate some of those changes, see what might still be necessary, and what were unnecessary. This reform process is something I get into in another interview on NBS.
The lack of push for my specific suggestions after I left the Court can be read as instructive insofar that presumably then change was not needed. The other perspective on that is that the next Courts were busy with the aforementioned backlog and the Court is naturally more restrained than any other regional institution. A fresh look now – over a year on from those proposals – may yield a more mature decision, either in the affirmative or negative.
After my tenure the Court established a Court Clerk programme which had a spur of activity at first. While it isn't my idea I do hope to take part in the revitalisation of that programme. One immediate way is to invite the Clerks into deliberations on possible changes. They are (relative) newcomers to the Court system and can use that fresh perspective to improve our processes.
Lastly the Court is by nature reactive. Campaign promises when running for Justice are peculiar because so much of what the Court does hinges on the cases before it. Even seemingly pure administrative promises, such as quicker turn-around on issuing rulings, are inextricably linked to the complexity of the case. A promise to deliver rulings as fast as the case complexity allows is not a very enticing selling point for a campaign, but it is the best I can offer.
I am open for questions.
This ruling is something I get into in my interview on NBS.
My last campaign was titled ‘Reforms are needed’ and I made the case for several changes. Some of those got implemented, while others fell by the wayside. I believe a time of calm is useful because it allows us to reevaluate some of those changes, see what might still be necessary, and what were unnecessary. This reform process is something I get into in another interview on NBS.
The lack of push for my specific suggestions after I left the Court can be read as instructive insofar that presumably then change was not needed. The other perspective on that is that the next Courts were busy with the aforementioned backlog and the Court is naturally more restrained than any other regional institution. A fresh look now – over a year on from those proposals – may yield a more mature decision, either in the affirmative or negative.
After my tenure the Court established a Court Clerk programme which had a spur of activity at first. While it isn't my idea I do hope to take part in the revitalisation of that programme. One immediate way is to invite the Clerks into deliberations on possible changes. They are (relative) newcomers to the Court system and can use that fresh perspective to improve our processes.
Lastly the Court is by nature reactive. Campaign promises when running for Justice are peculiar because so much of what the Court does hinges on the cases before it. Even seemingly pure administrative promises, such as quicker turn-around on issuing rulings, are inextricably linked to the complexity of the case. A promise to deliver rulings as fast as the case complexity allows is not a very enticing selling point for a campaign, but it is the best I can offer.
I am open for questions.