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.

I nominate Cyc, Donsig, Bill_in_PDX, gert_janl, KCCrusader, and Immortal
Note: I am nominating the above in all judiciary positions, as i do not know which they prefer.

I Second Cyc, Donsing, and Bill

I humbly decline this nomination. I'll need everyone's support for PD though :)

I suppory Cyc

I support Bill_in_PDX and customarily nominate donsig.

First I will nominate Cyc that did a great job on the constitution, I would also like to nominate Sir Donald 3, Comnenus and Ravensfire to this position, so we can get an election campaign of some nerve and excitement.

... I would also like to nominate Sir Donald 3, Comnenus and Ravensfire to this position, ...

I thank Provolution for having such faith in my constitutional prowess. However, I feel that I am not yet so experienced in these matters for the full position of Chief Justice as yet.

Therefore, I humbly Decline this nomination.

Wow - no nominations accepted for Chief Justice yet...

Well, I was hoping I would have some competion. :sad:

I will now Accept my Nomination for this position. :thumbsup:

To the candidates:

1. Describe your experience w/ DG rulesets and how this would help you in this office.

2. The vast majority of JR's this term passed without any public comments. What do you plan to do bring more citizen participation to these review?

3. Why should I vote for you?

-- Ravensfire

To the candidates:

1. Describe your experience w/ DG rulesets and how this would help you in this office.
As you, and many others are aware, I have been a major proponent of our Constitutions and rulesets since DG1. Having a background in this area can only help. :)

2. The vast majority of JR's this term passed without any public comments. What do you plan to do bring more citizen participation to these review?
There has been a problem with Citizen input on Judicial matters this Term. I naturally assumed it was because we had a large number of new people and that most everyone was satisfied with the rulings and general attitude of the Bench. Some people refuse to participate out of stubborness. There is nothing I can do about their actions. I will continue to seek input from the house on all Judicial matters.

3. Why should I vote for you?

-- Ravensfire
First thought? Because this ballot will not be in the form of a public poll. :lol: :rotfl:
OK, seriously, because I told you too. :lol: :rotfl:

I'm sorry, the past just keeps surfacing here. :cooool: With all due respect, Ravensfire, you know I'm qualified for the position and you know I have the best interest of the Citizens at heart. Would you need more?

I'm sorry, the past just keeps surfacing here. :cooool: With all due respect, Ravensfire, you know I'm qualified for the position and you know I have the best interest of the Citizens at heart. Would you need more?

Ahhh, I know that, but there are quite a few others that don't. Don't try to convince me, convince them. No conspiracy theory here.

The public participation thing is something that bothers me. A bare handful of comments in this term, compared to quite a few from early terms in DG4. One suggestion would be to create a thread for each JR, with justices holding off 24 hours before posting any official opinions. It gets the issues out in front better, while still allowing the quick turnaround on the issues.

-- Ravensfire

Honorable CJ Candidates, so far only Cyc

My election to the CJ candidate is the following 3

1. How conservative, reactionary, pragmatic, progressive or radical are you going to be in the face of a cabinet reform of the ministerial roles? Please elaborare on the choice of approach you would follow pertaining to the Code of Laws and the Constitution.

2. Would we see a shift from legalese to more accessible language in discussing the meaning of various laws, so people have a easy access to law discussions?

3. How do we involve the citizens more without stealing focus from critical parts of the game, balancing legal debates versus Japanatican expansion?

Honorable CJ Candidates, so far only Cyc

My election to the CJ candidate is the following 3

1. How conservative, reactionary, pragmatic, progressive or radical are you going to be in the face of a cabinet reform of the ministerial roles? Please elaborare on the choice of approach you would follow pertaining to the Code of Laws and the Constitution.

Cabinet reform needs to be discussed, and then polled in order to make changes that abide by the will of the people. Take the change that CT made on the Military Advisor this game. She's claiming that the MA can make changes to the build queues submitted by a Governor simply because we are under attack. This is totally illegal, far outreaching the authority of the MA. This was a radical transformation and should never have been done.

2. Would we see a shift from legalese to more accessible language in discussing the meaning of various laws, so people have a easy access to law discussions?

I try to present the facts and interpretations of the court in the best way I can. I don't feel I use leagalese in my posts. Plain English is my intent. If it doesn't come off that way, then there must not be an easier way to say it.

3. How do we involve the citizens more without stealing focus from critical parts of the game, balancing legal debates versus Japanatican expansion?

The structure of the current Judicial Branch allows adequate access to all citizens that wish to participate in discussion of Judicial matters. Last Demogame we had separate threads for each Judicial Review and that process was a dismal failure. Not only did people not respond to them, but they cluttered up the Citizens subforum. This game we have moved discussion into the Judicial thread. Citizen Complaints (which were handled by the Court last game and thus held in the Judicial thread) are now moved to the Citizen's subforum for easy processing and Citizen participation. As there hasn't been any CCs, there has been no clutter.

Decline....

I merely copied previous "nomination info" posts if that's what you're talking about. I'm not making any claims, Cyc.