Position: Chief Justice

This is the Nomination thread for the office of Chief Justice.

The Chief Justice is the head of the Judiciary, and responsible for creating the procedures the Judiciary will use for that term. As with all members of the Judiciary, the Chief Justice will resolve and clarify any questions of our laws, investigate any possible violations of the laws and review amendments to the Constitution.

To nominate a citizen for Chief Justice, including yourself, post the name in this thread or PM Ravensfire. In order for a citizen to be accepted for the election, they must accept the nomination by posting in this thread or sending a PM to Ravensfire. Self-nominations are considered automatically accepted unless indicated otherwise. Citizens may only accept one nomination.

All citizens are encouraged to post questions to the nominees about their plans and qualifications for the office. Nominees are encouraged, but not required, to answer those questions.

The election poll will be posted at 6:00 pm, Feb. 24, CST, and will list all accepted nominations, in order of acceptance.

Good luck!
-- Ravensfire

I nominate Ravensfire, although I hope that any office he might fill won't stop him from writing initiatives.

As if their was any other option....... Donsig i nominate you

As if their was any other option....... Donsig i nominate you

I second that.

I nominate Ravensfire, although I hope that any office he might fill won't stop him from writing initiatives.
I'll accept, and will have a platform posted this evening.

-- Ravensfire

I second that.

Third. :mischief:

Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.

Ladies and Gentleman I would like to announce my intention to form a Chief Justice investigative committee.

Now at first thoughts your all going to say

Hang on isnt this that crazy who pretends to be a mobster, who ran for president then had a sleep, who cant string two words together let alone a judical review.

and

and the noob sandwhich is running against ravensfire and donsig that dirty hand man dosent have a chance!

I shall adress this arguments in reverse order, because thats the way i like to do things.

1.
Sure their are some bigger names running than myself. No one doubts ravensfire can do the job, but i feel the voters of this fine country will elect me for two reasons.

Its my turn. My demogame carrer has be spread evenly between the foreign department and the judicary. I have been Foreign Leader on many occasions and for a while now i have set my goals apon this great office.

Twice in the last demogame is Won the position and then had it stolen from me. First I was appointed by acting-president cheiftess. But i had it taken from me by legal review and squander.

The second time i was elected in a one horse race, and i never saw a case the entire term.

People the Time is Right for Nobody JUDACIARY!

2.
I have so far made 2240ish posts here at civfanatics, a vast majority of which have been stupid one liners and rash illogical statements.
This is just a clever ruse to confuse my enemys, the real nobody will answer any legal questions you may have in a clear and understandable form.

I wont write 1000 words to define what a Settler is, ill call a settler a settler and a will of the people, a will of the people.
3.
This one time at band camp.... i ran for president and then went on a holiday so to speak. Im sorry what more can i say, everyone screws around once give me a break.

My thoughts : "most of the demogame players are americans, so they will have no problem electing a useless president"

4.
The mafia dosent exsist, me and some like minded individuals hang out pretending to be spys some times. WOW, anyway im no thug...

I have really Broken into my new stuff yet just rehashing the past,

So expect some more to come soon:

My platform
Petty attacks against opponents
Answers to your questions

Its nobodys turn, the time is right...
Vote Nobody for Chief Justice

yeah so i nominate donsig then self nominate... donsig is still great but now i must encourage you all to vote for me.

The mafia dosent exsistMafia, what mafia? What i this "mafia" you speak of? ;)

Fellow citizens,

I come before you, seeking your support in my effort to become the Chief Justice of our nation.

As many of you know, I've been here before, running for this office and serving as the Chief Justice. I've been involved in the creation of the rules for this game, pushing them forward when others would not. We've got an excellent Constitution, and a Government that's perfect for these early days. We've got excitement, new citizens joining, and old citizens returning.

I believe I am the right person to help keep that going. We have a new philosophy in DG2. It's more that just "Build as you go", it's about keeping things the right size, about putting the emphasis on the citizens. I plan to bring that philosphy to the Judiciary.

The procedures I create will be similar to the ones used in past DG's. The process for Citizen Complaints will remain basically the same, as will the review process for Constitutional Amendments. Judicial Reviews will be handled slightly differently - I will ask that the Judiciary only review those cases where we have actual disputes in the rules. I will resist having the Judiciary make new law, and actively work with the citizens to resolve such questions.

The Judiciary should be there to help citizens, support the DG and keep things flowing. The Judiciary I am the Chief Justice of will to it's utmost to be just that.

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire

Some questions for all the candidates -

Seeing as one of the most important roles of the Chief Justice is organization, what will be your approach toward running the judiciary?

The constitution grants the Judicial branch broad power in defining its own procedures, unless otherwise defined by law. Would you favor exercising that power, or would you favor enshrining those procedures in an Initiative or other form of higher law, and why?

Just a question that will run across all these nominations but to prevent cross-posts, I will post it here.

How many offices can a person hold?

Just a question that will run across all these nominations but to prevent cross-posts, I will post it here.

How many offices can a person hold?

You can only accept one nomination in an election cycle (that is, you can only be a candidate in one election, excluding the election for designated player). Beyond that, I don't think there's a specific limit to how many offices a person can hold.

Seeing as one of the most important roles of the Chief Justice is organization, what will be your approach toward running the judiciary?As I mentioned in my platform statement, it will be similar to the courts that I've run in the past, with some changes to help speed things up.

For Judicial Reviews, I will encourage the Judiciary to accept only true conflicts of law or matters that might significantly impact the game. Questions that would result in "new law" (How should we handle XYZ) will be sent to the Citizens, asking them to work on an initiative if needed. I plan to be aggressive in pushing back, and active in leading those discussions.

If the request is about a conflict in law, or a situation that might impact the DG in a material matter, I will accept the review, and proceed as we've done in the past - discussion for a day or two, more if needed, and then as for rulings. If the matter is something that should normally be returned to the people, but the potential for harm to the DG exists if not handled quickly, I would issue a temporary ruling that would expire when a relevant initiative is passed.

The constitution grants the Judicial branch broad power in defining its own procedures, unless otherwise defined by law. Would you favor exercising that power, or would you favor enshrining those procedures in an Initiative or other form of higher law, and why?
Barring abuse by a Chief Justice, they should remain as procedures. We've had tremendous success with the procedures, allowing changes between terms as needed. If there are abuses, specifically targetted Initiatives should correct them and remind the Judiciary that they are a servant of the people.

How many offices can a person hold?
There are no limits to the number of offices a person can hold, but there are limits to the number of elections a citizen can run in.

The idea is that if we've got enough citizen to run for elections, we should spread that out. If we've got unfilled positions, and not enough active people, we can appoint people to second offices. Appointments can be challenged, so if a Chieftain tries to appoint someone to a second office when qualified citizens not in office expressed interest, that appointment can be challenged, and hopefully overturned.

-- Ravensfire, Candidate for Chief Justice

Clear to me, I shall support Ravensfire.

Best regards,

Question for Candidates:

Will you participate in the legislative process while on the bench? Please elaborate on your reasons.

Bad news: im going away for a week or so (going to auckland to watch the WWE). And when i get back my internet access may be comprimized. Regardless ill be back soonish. But im not going to stand for this election.

Good luck opponents.

Will you participate in the legislative process while on the bench? Please elaborate on your reasons.

I will continue to participate as I've been doing. I'll toss out proposals, push discussions on various topics and try to create something that most people accept. I think that's key - you can't always keep everyone happy (or even most!), but you work to create something that will work, and will keep most people satisfied.

-- Ravensfire, Candidate for Chief Justice

Since Nobody nominated my I will accept. Too bad I can't run against Nobody. I love Nobody/nobody puns.

Question for Candidates:

Will you participate in the legislative process while on the bench? Please elaborate on your reasons.

Of course I will, because I'm a citizen.

Some questions for all the candidates -

Seeing as one of the most important roles of the Chief Justice is organization, what will be your approach toward running the judiciary?

The constitution grants the Judicial branch broad power in defining its own procedures, unless otherwise defined by law. Would you favor exercising that power, or would you favor enshrining those procedures in an Initiative or other form of higher law, and why?

I'm for less rules and regulations so I would not even try to put judicial procedures into an initiative. If we get into some trouble down the road I'd try getting some small initiatives passed that addressed specific problems.

As for organizing the judiciary, I'd lay out some procedures (based on the judicial procedures of previous demogames). As Ravensfire has pointed out, the main power of the judiciary lies in accepting or rejecting cases. I would also try to avoid spurious cases feel a case should be accepted even if only one justice thinks it has merit. I am also a believer in the judicial members being able to discuss cases in private (either through pms or chats). Past DG legal issues have been quite complex and my procedures would allow justices to take their time and deliberate all points of the law, conferring back and forth in hopes of reaching a judicial consensus.

Question for candidates:

Despite the feelings of some people, there are types of court cases which effectively stop time because the people don't know what to do until a decision is made. Are you able and willing to make a fast ruling in a situation where the game is stuck waiting for you?

There are no limits to the number of offices a person can hold, but there are limits to the number of elections a citizen can run in.

The idea is that if we've got enough citizen to run for elections, we should spread that out. If we've got unfilled positions, and not enough active people, we can appoint people to second offices. Appointments can be challenged, so if a Chieftain tries to appoint someone to a second office when qualified citizens not in office expressed interest, that appointment can be challenged, and hopefully overturned.

-- Ravensfire, Candidate for Chief Justice

I see. But it seems that we have too many candidates running for a few particular officers :crazyeye:

Question for the candidates: Do you favor a narrow or a broad reading of a law? In other words, are you more likely to stick to a strict literal meaning of the law or are you more inclined to look at policy reasons or spirit behind the law to make a ruling?

Despite the feelings of some people, there are types of court cases which effectively stop time because the people don't know what to do until a decision is made. Are you able and willing to make a fast ruling in a situation where the game is stuck waiting for you?
I'm not going to rush through something to save a day or two. Our rules are our rules - once you start ignoring them, it's hard to stop people. That means that when there is a legitimate question that needs to be answered, people need to let the system resolve that question.

If it's complicated, then I would let the discussion go until I see the same points being remade, and ask my fellow Justices to make their rulings. I would hope that they would post them quickly, but I'm not going to rush them with 2-3 hour timeframes. The last thing that is needed in with a critical question is a hasty and wrong response.

If it's a critical question, but one that I feel should best be handled by an Initiative, I would work to get a temporary ruling (following the normal process) to allow the game to continue, and then immediately work on a long-term initiative to resolve matters.

I personally would work to have my decision as quickly as I could. Work and personal life can, and does, interfere, but I believe all officials owe a duty to the DG to allow time to complete the duties of the office. We don't force citizens to serve, after all.

-- Ravensfire

Question for the candidates: Do you favor a narrow or a broad reading of a law? In other words, are you more likely to stick to a strict literal meaning of the law or are you more inclined to look at policy reasons or spirit behind the law to make a ruling?

That's a really good question. I'm afraid that I can't give a single Yay/Nay response.

Some laws are absolute to me - citizen rights being core to that. Keeping things fair to everyone, following the instruction thread, the election process - all of those I consider absolute laws. You just don't play fast and loose with them.

Some of the smaller ones, you do need to consider the background and discussions around that law. Let's face it, none of us (that I know of, at least) make a leaving crafting laws or regulations. If we did, we'd probably have something that's 3 times as long! Sometimes, seeing the discussion can make it clear what was intended and understood by those crafting the rule.

We do the best we can to make the rules clear to everyone. That is, of course, impossible - different people will interpret the same phrase differently, causing problems. When two options are equally valid, I generally go with what's going to keep the game interesting and entertaining for most people.

That's not to say that I always take that into consideration, or that it's a major factor. Ssorry, but it's not and it shouldn't be. The Judiciary is there to interpret the law, to resolve questions about it. We're not there to make the laws. We already have a process to change the laws - amendments and initiatives. More than once I've made rulings that were unpopular, and been amazed that nobody bothered to try and change the law behind the ruling.

My apologies for seeming to "dance" around the question, I certainly wasn't intending to give that impression. I just don't feel that there is a single, simple answer to that question.

-- Ravensfire

I see. But it seems that we have too many candidates running for a few particular officers :crazyeye:

Yup! It's something that happens at times - one or two offices just get "popular", and have lot's of people wanting to hold that office.

I think it's nice that the Elder position is getting that much attention though. Our cities will only benefit from having so many people interested in running them. Hopefully, we'll keep that interest through the next few terms, and have some really well-developed and planned cities!

-- Ravensfire

I'm not going to rush through something to save a day or two. Our rules are our rules - once you start ignoring them, it's hard to stop people. That means that when there is a legitimate question that needs to be answered, people need to let the system resolve that question.

If it's complicated, then I would let the discussion go until I see the same points being remade, and ask my fellow Justices to make their rulings. I would hope that they would post them quickly, but I'm not going to rush them with 2-3 hour timeframes. The last thing that is needed in with a critical question is a hasty and wrong response.

If it's a critical question, but one that I feel should best be handled by an Initiative, I would work to get a temporary ruling (following the normal process) to allow the game to continue, and then immediately work on a long-term initiative to resolve matters.

I personally would work to have my decision as quickly as I could. Work and personal life can, and does, interfere, but I believe all officials owe a duty to the DG to allow time to complete the duties of the office. We don't force citizens to serve, after all.

-- Ravensfire

Sorry, I failed to define fast and slow. In my mind, fast=1-2 days, slow=weeks. :)

To Ravensfire and donsig:

Do you have a vision for how the Judiciary's decisions would be announced?

Do you anticipate posting "rulings" laying out your reasoning so that the decision can be used as precedent in the future?

Will you make all (or any part) of your deliberations public?

Will you require more than one Judiciary member to certify a matter for review before it is taken up by the Court?

Will amici curiae briefs be permitted under your judicial procedures?

I look forward to your replies.

Yup! It's something that happens at times - one or two offices just get "popular", and have lot's of people wanting to hold that office.

I think it's nice that the Elder position is getting that much attention though. Our cities will only benefit from having so many people interested in running them. Hopefully, we'll keep that interest through the next few terms, and have some really well-developed and planned cities!

-- Ravensfire

Hopefully, the interest will sustain through the next few terms...;)

Yes, the game will benefit if there are more people as anyone can pitch in when needed

Do you have a vision for how the Judiciary's decisions would be announced? After the Judiciary has ruled, the Chief Justice will post a summary of the question, the final ruling, and links to the individual rulings.
Always. I (and my esteemed opponent) can get fairly long-winded at times. I think it's useful for people to see my thought process. If you don't like the court's ruling, it's harder to change the law when you don't know why the ruled as they did.
[quote]Will you make all (or any part) of your deliberations public?I like to see an active discussion on the topic, especially if it's controversial. There aren't real deliberations any more, but sometimes there are PM's between the Justices. While I believe that any Justice can make their PM's public if they choose, I don't feel the need. As I mentioned above, my rulings (and you can look through the archives for some samples from both donsig and myself) fairly clearly lay out my thought process.
Will you require more than one Judiciary member to certify a matter for review before it is taken up by the Court?My procedures will allow any Justice to decide if a question should be docketed or not. If any one Justice says a question should be reviewed, then it will be. This keeps the process moving fast, yet makes sure that only the obvious requests are denied.
Will amici curiae briefs be permitted under your judicial procedures?Always, always, always. This IS an interesting part of the game to me, and other citizens. Some of the most interesting discussions have been in threads about Judicial Reviews. No citizen should EVER have their views prevented from being aired by the court. I actively seek citizen comments, and at a minimum acknowledge them in my rulings.
I look forward to your replies.Excellent questions!

-- Ravensfire

Sorry, I failed to define fast and slow. In my mind, fast=1-2 days, slow=weeks. :)
Ah - THAT I can answer.

I cannot imagine something taking weeks, barring an absent Justice. My ideal timeline would be to respond to all requests within 24 hours, and resolve discussions within 3-4 days, and rulings up a day later. I think the easier question will be much faster than that. I will require Justices to wait 24 hours after the request is docketed, just to make sure there is a period for citizen comment.

-- Ravensfire

Do you have a vision for how the Judiciary's decisions would be announced?

My vision: When a case is accepted, it is discussed by all (citizens and justices), justices deliberate together privately, justices write up and post their own decisons in the judicial thread and the CJ posts the final decision summing up the individual decisions.

Do you anticipate posting "rulings" laying out your reasoning so that the decision can be used as precedent in the future?

Definately. That's what we've always done in the past. Each member of the judiciary posts his or her own decison.

Will you make all (or any part) of your deliberations public?

I see no reason to discontinue the tradition of a discussion thread for each case. I am also quite happy to post my opinions (both as a citizen and justice) in these threads. I do also believe that these public discussions should be supplemented with private deliberations amongst the judiciary members.

Will you require more than one Judiciary member to certify a matter for review before it is taken up by the Court?

No. I believe it is important to let the majority (of justices) rule but when it comes to hearing cases I think a case should heard even if only one justice thinks the case has merit. This is probably due to the many minority opinions I've held. :D

Will amici curiae briefs be permitted under your judicial procedures?

Most certainly. It not only makes sense to allow these, it is part of the democracy game judicial tradition that anyone be allowed to post their views on any pending cases.

Question for the candidates: Do you favor a narrow or a broad reading of a law? In other words, are you more likely to stick to a strict literal meaning of the law or are you more inclined to look at policy reasons or spirit behind the law to make a ruling?

As long as what is written covers the question raised by the case I will favor a narrow interpretation. We will adhere to what is actually written and not what was meant to be written.

In cases where the written law is vague or ambiguous then (and only then) would I favor a broader reading and delve into things like the spirit behind the law. It would be quite interesting to interpret the constitution we have this game. It was proposed by me but is a revision of last game's coinstitution which was basically written by DaveShack (though it does have origins dating back to earlier democracy games). I would hesitate to interpret vague clauses according to current public opinion and would prefer such opinions to be clarified and solidified by actual citizen initiatives.

Question for candidates:

Despite the feelings of some people, there are types of court cases which effectively stop time because the people don't know what to do until a decision is made. Are you able and willing to make a fast ruling in a situation where the game is stuck waiting for you?

Only if we get an initiative passed giving the judiciary authority to make decisons and post game play instructions pertaining to cases. I have no problem giving a quick legal opinion but will not be pressured into making quick legal decisions that are expected to be correct and stand as law until (or if) an initiative is passed covering the situation.

If you are worried about the game stopping because some official doesn't know what to do then I suggest you either be prepared to write alot of initiatives or elect officials who are not afraid to make decisions. I've been proposing a simple and clear cut way for everyone to know when group decisions have been made so that elected officials and DPs will know when they can make decisions and when they have to follow forum poll results. Using my proposal there will never be any reason to stop play so I will have no patience at all for that sort of silliness. I will not let the judiciary bail out elected officials who are afraid to make decisons. I would also not let the citizenry off the hook for not making decisions when they have the power to do so. It is not the judiciary's job to make snap decisons about how to play the [civ4] game.

Nominations are CLOSED!

Link to election poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=209072)

-- Ravensfire