Interview with Chief Justice Pallaith
The Ministry of Communications sat down with
Chief Justice Pallaith, who is currently seeking re-election to his seat on the highest court in all the land. In the interview, the full breadth of the Chief Justice's legal prowess and wisdom developed over years serving on the bench is on full display for all to see. Ever unabashedly expatiating, the Chief Justice and I conversed thoroughly about the role of a Court Justice, the powers of the court, and the road ahead for it -- just to name a few topics. The transcript, as it unfolded -- unedited as well -- is below.
Pallaith: I'm ready
Isenoka: Alright then. What do you see as the appropriate public role for a Court Justice?
Pallaith: If I understand your question correctly, then the way I see it is this. In terms of what the office itself provides for, justices have occasion to speak publicly in their capacity as a justice when they render a decision or rule in a criminal trial, and of course when they are campaigning for the role. It is a reactive role that does not invite much in the way of activism. Whenever you see a justice engaging publicly, perhaps in the RA or in a general forum or Discord space, you are seeing the justice in their role as a citizen or whatever other hats they wear. As the justice, as the member of the court, wearing that particular hat, most communication is official and carrying out the process of their work, and then finally rendering their opinion.
Isenoka: Just to touch upon what you just said (
if I'm reading it correctly): when a Justice steps outside the courtroom and engages in conduct afforded to any North Pacific private citizen (
or changes their "hat" as you put it), do you believe it's appropriate for them to engage in conduct that might otherwise be considered unbecoming of a justice? In other words, should the standards expected of a justice follow them outside of the courtroom as well?
Pallaith: Well I suppose that depends on what you consider to be a standard, and whether every office has standards unique to itself. Anyone who is an elected official in TNP certainly should abide by stricter standards than an ordinary citizen. I don't want to read too much into your question that isn't there, but I do not think it is unbecoming for a justice to participate in the civic process in TNP. Becoming a justice does not mean you have to be a statue who doesn't participate or say anything in public or have an opinion on anything "just in case" you have to hear a case that may involve that. If that happens, and that other activity would constitute a conflict of interest, that is what recusal for. But if the standards are more generic, as long as you are an elected official, you should be held to that higher standard.
Isenoka: Since we're already on the topic of the civic/political (whatever you want to call it) process, to what extent do you believe it’s advisable for a Court Justice to weigh in on regional politics?
Pallaith: A justice has to remember that the more involved you are the more you speak out, the more likely it is you may run into situations where you create a conflict of interest. So it can be advisable to hold back a little if you don't want to have to sit out in a decision. That's happened to me a few times, but whenever it does, I do file briefs. I think most justices in that situation in the past have ended up filing briefs in those situations. I am speaking about R4Rs here, because it's simpler in criminal trials, if the justice is involved obviously they cannot serve as the moderating justice or sit on the Court when deciding collectively. But personally, I don't think the justice should be afraid to particpate in the region in general. This isn't the real world, we cannot isolate ourselves entirely, the game would be a lot less fun otherwise. More power to you if you want to be a distant monk though, but don't forget, there are terms where the court literally has nothing to do.
Isenoka: Even when the Court's docket is quiet, do you think it should have the power of judicial review? Instead of how (correct me if I'm wrong of course) the court has to wait for cases to come to it? And on that note, what do you believe is the biggest flaw in our current legal system, and would you go about addressing it?
Pallaith: The court is a reactive body by design, and that's how it should be. The court does have the power of judicial review, pretty explicitly, but I think what you're really asking about is advisory opinions. If a justice wants to weigh in on whether a law is constitutional, they should speak up in the RA, the forum, or the Discord in general. But formally, officially, as the court? That is impossible. It isn't permissible constitutionally, it isn't a good idea in general, and the court itself has invalidated (
in one of the opinions I authored) the only time the court ever did an advisory opinion. I think a court that decides to unilaterally start hearing a case on something it decides is unconstitutional and then declare it so would be absurd. Courts hear controversies and legal disputes, but if there is no dispute, where is the harm? Many cases have involved discovering, sometimes years later, that something being done was improper, but because of honest mistakes, or because people adapted without realizing it. The court is a dispute resolver, not a dispute creator.
I think there's a lot wrong with the legal system in TNP, mostly centered on the actual criminal trial process. I think it is too complicated, too derivative of the real world, and is just a game of "find the loophole" for people who want to dress up as lawyers. It's a joke and we need to seriously consider how valuable it actually is to have such a caricature of the real world legal system, and if we think it's worth the jokes and amusement of the lawyers' antics to have a system that is incapable of holding people accountable when they actually commit crimes. Do we actually care about these laws if we accept a system where they cannot be effectively enforced?
Isenoka: As Chief Justice and one of the longest-serving figures in TNP's legal court, you've obviously never shyed away from making your opinions known, both inside and outside of the courtroom. You have, on numerous occassions, been a fierce critic of the Court when it rules without any logical rationale. In this sense, I'm sure you have developed your own way to approaching/interpreting the law. Ultimately, how would you describe your judicial philosophy and or approach to interpreting the law?
Pallaith: Well TNP doesn't have anything pithy like originalist or living Constitution, but I think my approach is probably more originalist than not. A big aspect of my judicial philosophy is curbing any instance where the court goes further than it needs to, declares law on its own, goes bold with their (probably well-meaning) attempts to expand and protect the rights of the citizens. There are rules, there are limits, and everyone has to operate within them. The court had a bad habit of declaring things just because it decided that was how it had to be, and that very much is not in line with my philosophy. I do believe there has to be a clear chain of legal or constitutional principles that link up to the decision, you have to be able to map it out. If you can't point to a legal provision or a part of the constitution that backs up your argument, then you're just ruling by fiat, and I think that's bad.Another thing I would say is important to my decisions is that I am not afraid to dive into nuance. I think the court historically likes a broad principle, like absolute free speech, absolute military can't be too aggressive, absolute endorsing is always fine, absolute you can go to parties without limit. I don't like absolutes. I like exceptions, I like pragmatic solutions, I think that every case is potentially unique, as long as the underlying process and principles are correct and follow, you can find variations. The court has to use its discretion in smart ways.
Isenoka: Looking back across your years on the bench, and by extension, your experience in the North Pacific legal arena, is there a legal, political, social, or moral position you once advocated for that you've since come to believe was wrong?
Pallaith: As I’ve said I have long taken issue with the court making big pronouncements out of the blue backed by nothing in the legal code or constitution, and for a while I thought the ruling on ejecting nations on Z Day was one of those situations. The fact that people could be temporarily ejected and then not come back to the region and keep citizenship for a month seemed like an unnecessary loophole we created for no reason. I was prepared to overturn that ruling when we heard that case. But by the end of it, I was convinced that the judgment was sound. We ended up loosening things up a bit so that people in that situation wouldn’t keep citizenship forever, and made it possible for other exceptions like that to exist. But the principle itself was allowed to continue and I think deep diving on the issue is why I came around on it.
The very reason I joined the court initially was my outrage at how the (latest at that time) prosecution of MadJack was handled, and I believed that we had a lot of cleanup to do to fix our legal system. I still believe that. But I learned the hard way that it’s not something any one actor can do in this job simply fixing court procedure. The problem is complicated, and even the things that caused an issue in that case were not wrong, per se. In fact, the whole process did what it was designed to do, and it’s a good facsimile of the real world justice system (at least America’s I think, that seems to be the one it’s most closely imitating but I’m not a lawyer). But maybe we don’t have to use this one. I raised this question with the region but most people seemed unconcerned with replacing it. I’m a lot more ambivalent about it now, a lot more understanding of the prosecutors and judges who made those “obviously bad” calls I hated, because I had to conclude there wasn’t much else they could have done. You play with the cards you’re dealt. I would like a new hand to be dealt, but if the fans won’t come to the ball park, you can’t stop them.
Isenoka: Last question: One day, a new generation of justices will take over the court and inherit the legal system that you have moulded alongside your fellow justices over the years. When it's time to pass the torch to the generation that succeeds you, what would your word of advice be to them (whether it be in how they conduct themselves or navigate different legal conundrums)?
Pallaith: I believe that we set clear standards and apply them consistently, and you have to do that for logical and enduring legal principles to survive. You should always have a reason and legal backing for your decisions, and be able to explain and defend them. It should never be dependent on who the justices are and what mood they’re in - anyone elected to the court should be able to apply the same rules, norms, procedures, precedent, to any case and there should be at least some predictability there. Where new principles are created, they should follow the same pattern and strive to be established like the others were.But even with all of that being true, these things can evolve. The court of the future should not be afraid to change assumptions or conclusions with new evidence, with changes in the game or the region, they should be open to examining and reconsidering things too. As long as they do so responsibly with the same logical reasoning and legal support, sometimes old rulings can be retired. Sometimes people take leaps they may not have noticed and a new generation can set them straight. Precedent and consistency are essential but if the foundation is weak or wrong, they should be corrected. This is a role where you have to be considerate and careful, and these decisions and take time and they may be waiting patiently. I hope they take their roles seriously and don’t trivialize them, because they can leave a mark on the region that can take years to remove.
Isenoka: And that marks the end of our interview. Thank you for answering the questions with such great detail. Thank you again for agreeing to this interview and have a great rest of your day.
Pallaith: Yeah no problem.
