All members of the judiciary share several traditional rights and responsibilities:

Post polls and discussion on interpretations of the Constitution, Code of Laws, and Code of Standards.
Do not have Deputies but may appoint Pro-Tem justicesif they are unable to fulfill their duties. Pro-Tem officials have all of the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for but are a temporary position and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official.
Participate in Judicial Review to determine the legality of proposed amendments, laws and standards.
Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and standards.
Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to dismiss investigations as having "No Merit".
Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review (chief justice only).

Please Accept or Decline any nominations you receive.

Self nominate

Accepted

Nominate CYC for the position.

:nono:, CT. As per the results of this poll, (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=93998) we will have a JA and a PD instead of associate justices.

I accept. Thank you Immortal. I will second Immortal.

2nd Cyc...3rd Immortal....Good luck people..:D

I second both candidates.

I nominate Furiey.

I nominate myself and Accept

I nominate myself and accept.

Justice for all!

I'll second blackheart, curufinwe, and Furiey.

Question for the candidates:

What principle would you use for a basis in determining whether an investigation had "No Merit"?

Specify in a little more detail what youi mean by principal.

In terms of what would cause me to do so: Lack of evidence and the relevent constitutional articles, nothing more. Whether an investigation is political in nature or not, it is the job of the judiciary to uphold the constitution, and defend the accused from wrongful investigation.

In response to Cyc, what the investigation's original intent was. Was it political in nature and to be used to discredit opponents or was it a question of legal matter or welfare of the citizens. I believe investigations can occur under probable cause.

Three questions I'm going to put in every nomination thread (except FA, as I'm running there):

1. Are you running for multiple positions?

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?

I'm running for three positions. Chief Justice, Public Defender, and Judge Advocate. I would take Chief Justice first of course, and it really wouldn't matter which of the other two I would give priority, as I could thrive in both environments just as easily. And number 3, you need me as Chief Justice. :) You need me on the Judiciary. Voting for me on all three positions will benefit you. I am here to protect your rights and make sure things follow procedure. Because of the election process here in the Demogames, we have chosen for people to run for multiple positions at once. This goes against my better judgement, but if the people wish it to be, so be it.

1. Are you running for multiple positions?

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?

1. Yes, The judiciary, FA, Culture, and Science.

2. I have no "order" of preference, I have no idea which elections I stand a chance of being elected in, when I have a better idea of that, then I'll pick a preference. Ive been busy organizing the constitution, I simply am running in the positions I know myself to be the best at.

3. See above. Until Election night I am open to all options.

Is a public defender a high position and does it require a lot of work? If so, what would be a better position for someone new to the DemoGame other than a simple citizen?

Short answer: It canrequire a lot of work, but what it does require is a lot of TIME when an investigation is underway.

If you're feeling like you might be better suited in another department, Culture, Science, and Foreign Affairs are all very straighforward departments. Even if you arent elected to the minister position, a deputy position in any of these positions will be agreat introduction into our political world!

regards,

Cyc: If there was no evidence available or there was no law against what they did, I would dismiss it as of no merity.

Boots:
1. Are you running for multiple positions?
Yes, Chief Justice, Associate Judge Advocate, Public Defender, Culture Minister

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?
Already answered. Chief Justice, Culture Minister, Judge Advocate, Public Defender.

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?
To ensure I get on as something, hah. Vote for me to ensure your representation in the Judiciary and/or Culture. I'm committed to a synergistic approach to my positions, and to following the will of the people as expressed in a poll, regardless of what I think.

Thank you for the nomination, but I will decline. You will have noticed that I have not been around that much, and at the moment I don't have the time to do justice to this position.

Even if you arent elected to the minister position, a deputy position in any of these positions will be agreat introduction into our political world!
How do u run for a deputy? Sorry if i sound stupid.LoL

You dont, no need to apologize!

The runner-up from the election is the deputy. Except in the judiciary.

...as the Judiciary has no Deputies. :)

I would like to nominate myself, KCCrusader, for Public Defender. :-)

Wha? Me? I accept! Hah.

(Note: This post will look very similar when compared to the others in the Judicial Nominations posts)

The reasons to choose me for this Judicial Position are numerous. I have been playing Civ3 since October 28, 2001, and have experience in both PTW and C3C. I know the value of the game, and everything there is to know about it. As far as reviewing rules and cases, I have been one of 3 judges on a local traffic court for teenagers here in Oz. I have experience reviewing facts and making quick yet educated decisions. I also have the practice of reviewing rules set in stone (laws or the Constitution for this game) and deciding if any new action violates the documents. I am also new to the DemoGame system, so I will not be restricted by events of the past games. I will be free to interpret this position and the Constitution with a new freshness to hopefully pump new life into the Game.

Now, to answer all of these questions:

Cyc asks:
What principle would you use for a basis in determining whether an investigation had "No Merit"?

No Merit accusations are by far the easiest decisions that could be proposed. If the outcome of an investigation would not affect the game, Citizens, or the Constitution no matter the verdict, the investigation is without merit. Also, If the subject matter at hand is a constitutional matter, my interpretation of the Constituion would be somewhat strict, with a little room for open interpretation. If there is anything that comes up to which no law or document refers to, I feel the only option available would be to assign an investigation with a "No Merit" label, and suggest the other branches of government deal with a solution for any future issues of the same type with a law or amendment.

Bootstoots asks:
1. Are you running for multiple positions?

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?


1.Yes.
2. Chief Justice, Public Defender and Judge's Advocate. Cheif Justice would be first, then I would try to reach an agreement with a second place finisher if i had to choose between Public Defender and Judge's Advocate to ensure the best candidates fill both positions.
3. Your vote would not be wasted, because votes are never wasted when you vote for the best candidate. But I would say that Having me in any judicial position, since they are all very similar would be a huge benefit to the game, and it would not make too much difference which position I accept.

Thanks everyone!

I withdraw my candidacy for this postion due to the complexities of the job.

Being the Devils Advocate here :) I feel compelled to come with a defense case for you.

Someone has originated a campaign following a new amendment on the right to assembly, where political organization is disallowed, where there is also free assembly within that definition, meaning policy, citizen and other non-election groups are allowed.
Yet, an outsider has decided to start several cases against some of the citizen groups, which he or she claims is monopolizing the political influence, an that people having posted there seem to be doing well in elections over several terms. Now, you defend one of these citizen groups, in this case an ecology/pacifist group, who simply claims they have better arguments, and they just happen to use that forum to share views, yet that forum seems to have a higher representation within all branches than any other group. There is a suspicion that this group may be closed or elitist, but no conclusive evidence that they nominate people for elections.

How would you write a legal clause on that political parties with candidates is disallowed, but free assembly for citizen and policy organizations is allowed within the constitutional framework?

How would you set up the case defending the policy organization in a trial?

I will withhold my answer for a while, so as to give the other candidates ample time to answer.

1. Political clout of citizen groups in the demogame really ends at the point of a picked candidate. if there is evidence that a group is actively PICKING candidates from within its group to run in specific places, and is forcing all members to vote alongside them, that is something I think is against the spirit of the laws of the constitution (once amended). I mean real evidence, as in forwarded PM's or chat-room logs. One COULD argue that the laws may say one thing, but imply the other, but at that point I think it becomes more a matter of what the majority of citizens interpret the rules as than what the JA or PD would. I would also argue that citizens groups should be open membership. This is another idea which would lead me to believe a group has specific candidates that must be elected by the group: A member of the group in question forbids membership in any other. If both of those two cases apply then I wouldnt be surprised if they have to be considered a political party.

2. Without clear-cut evidence of candidate picking, and without an actual clause within the groups rules banning membership outside the group, I cannot foresee anyone finding the group guilty. Any evidence other than those two pieces are largely circumstantial and mostly heresay, which is not evidence that a real trial accepts. I would defend this group on the basis that interpetation of their rules can lead anyone to conclude anything, that doesnt necessarily make it true. I would ask the leader of the group to define the rules as he/she believes them to be and defend those positions are organizational policy, not political.

In my opinion there is a definate line between political activist groups and political parties. Parties nominate a Person within the group only to run on their party's name. Activist groups, while they may persuade candidates to run, do not have anyone running for the actual group. So long as there are no names of parties on the Polls, and there are no obvious, evidence-backed cases of a closed group (join by invitation or acceptance only) unanimously agreeing to support the party candidate or face a deletion of membership, these groups and parties are well within the legal confines of the game.

It is not within the right of the government to disband any groups or barr and known members of a collective organization from voting. As long as there was no monitored voting and membership in a group was based on a vote for the groups candidate, there are no actions, based on the Constitution and judiciary precidents that could be taken against a group that simply decides to all vote for a candidate. This arguement is also backed by the fact that each citizen has a free will. Even the most elitest group or party(if we had them) cannot contend with a citizens ability to vote for who they wish. Even if membership is on the line, I trust all citizens to vote for who they believe will make the best candidate, especially since these groups come with no extra incentives within the game. There is no dire need to be in them. Due to the fact of free will of each member in the group, i see no action that can be taken to dissolve or take any action against these groups as long as party names are not on ballots.