Term 4 ~ Judiciary

Donsig, I regonize that others feel the same way as you, just as other feeel the same way as me. I can even simpathize with them. I am a fair-even minded person . Your post made me chuckle because you were contemplating doing EXACTLY what curufinwe did, and if you did it you would no doubt see it as correct.

Also, I would like to volunterr muslef for Pro-temship whenever needed, so i can prove to my doubters that i can be a good justice.

Donsig, actually, the Judiciary decided that the poll was valid up until the point of hte extension, meaning that the result at that time (with me being confirmed) was the legal one.

Come on everyone stop bickerning, this is a court. Treat it respectfully, last terms recusals/nonrecusals have been debated into the ground. Right Now the only bussiness of the Judicary is to create our procedures. Citizens can post Judical Reviews or CCs during this time but there is no reason to dicuss them until these procedures are set.

So here is what is propose.
Lets just confirm the current judical procedures with the following ammendments:

• Under the Shared Duties Title we add a new bullet Point.

  Recuse themself from any Judicial Reviews they submitted or they are affected by.

  Click to expand...

• Under the Shared Duties title

  Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement

  Click to expand...

  Becomes

  Notify the Judiciary of any Absence,

  Click to expand...

• Under Shared Duties another bullet point is added

  Whenever a justice is going to be absent or is going to recuse there self they should inform the Judiciary and appoint a Pro-tempor Justice. If the concerned justice is unable to appoint a Pro-tempor then the Chief Justice shall do so. The appointed Pro-tempor shall have what ever powers that the appointer grants them. Pro-tempor appointments may be vetoed by any member of the Judiciary within 72 hours of their appointment. During the 72 hour “veto period” the Pro-tempor shall exercise granted powers.

  Click to expand...

Lets discuss the procedures and decide whenever or not to add anymore. Ofcourse what i wrote above is just some ideas feel free to throw them away or rewrite them. But lets get this done before we discuss anything else. And lets forget last term for a while.

DaveShack said:

Well now, this could get really interesting. Is a case concluded when all 3 justices have ruled, or when the Chief Justice has consolidated the rulings, posted the formal court ruling, and posted the Judicial Log? If we consider a case to still be open until all the paperwork is done, then a little creativity in the wording of the judicial procedures could have a pretty drastic effect on the incomplete work from the previous term.

If you want me to post a proposal for the court to review I'd be happy to -- but I think it's best for me to refrain from doing that in case this term's court doesn't want to play hardball with last term's cases.

Click to expand...

Well, I would think if a case made it to the judicial log it would be considered finished. Anything not making it there is unfinished. What sort of legal definition would you put on *unfinished*? I'm not sure what you're hinting at. Are there unfinished cases from last term? Maybe I should check into that. I never got to participate in the formal JR discussions last term because I asked the CJ one last time to recuse himself. He chose not to answer so I missed the JRs. My proposal was prompted by the CoL fiasco between terms one and two. In term one we had a JR on an amendment which was polled and passed but not included in the official CoL thread till term 3. That had a direct impact on the term three follies. Was it my job as term two CJ to get the CoL updated? If it was then I missed it and that's why I thought it would be a good idea to formalize the transfer of unfinished business from term to term. I'm sorry if my motives don't live up to my reputation.

@ Swissempire: No, I would not think it was right. I would however, think it was legal. There is a difference and anyone who wants to be a justice should realize that.

@ Curufinwe: So what? As I said, the judiciary did not make any rulings last term on whether justices should or must recuse themselves from judicial reviews that affect them. Your confirmation poll was legally about confirming you as chief justice and nothing more.

@ Nobody and Black Hole: I would vote for Nobody's revisions regarding judiciary absences and the appointment of pro tempore justices. At this time I would not vote for judicial procedures that force justices to recuse themselves on judicial reviews. As I said earlier, the current legal situation is that we are allowed to rule on JRs that affect us. Until that legal situation is rectified by something higher than our own procedures I respectfully request that we leave that clause out. Once again I remind my fellow justices that we are allowed to change our procedures mid-term. Let's leave this hot potato alone for awhile and let it cool down.

Question: Do ALL the justices have to rectify the procedures, or just the majority?
------------
Seperate Idea: May be you can have a list where people who would like to pro-tem so they can gain judicial experience can put there name forward BEFORE HAND, so when a justice is absent you don't have to play favorite or we dob't have people jockeying for justices that share said persons opinion on the matter. Just choose the next on the list. I think this would be more fair for everyone. And no, this is not just me wanting to pro-tem. I'm sure there are a lot of people(actuaally i know there are) who would like a chnce to get there hands dirtty and show people what the have got.

Suggestion for the procedures:

During term 1, we created a template for amendments, to make sure all relevant information was covered. I suggest including that template in the procedures.

-- Ravensfire

donsig said:

Are there unfinished cases from last term?

Click to expand...

I had no idea if any cases are unfinished. I thought there might be some, but it appears it only looked that way because the final opinion was posted only in the log and not in the judiciary thread.

In term one we had a JR on an amendment which was polled and passed but not included in the official CoL thread till term 3.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, though it was difficult to tell because the editing of the Constitution thread didn't go the way I thought it would, the amendment was posted to the thread. I (as term 1 CJ) appended the amendment, and then it never got edited in by the mods. Later when it was edited in (after Chieftess discovered her mistake I reckon) the amendment itself was deleted from the thread, erasing the paper trail I thought should be there.

DaveShack,

That was at my request due to the confusion about the ruleset. Citizens were reading the old ruleset only, and not the amendments. We need to keep the ruleset thread accurate to make it as easy as possible for citizen to review and understand the rules.

-- Ravensfire

I have some questions about filling Vacant positions.

1) Is there a required place for the office filling the position to post that they are looking for candidates?

2) Must the office filling the position wait 72 hours after that request to fill the office, or may someone be appointed before that time period?

3) If only one citizen applies during that 72 hour period, must the office filling the position appoint that citizen?

Section 8.C of the Code of Laws.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

ravensfire said:

DaveShack,

That was at my request due to the confusion about the ruleset. Citizens were reading the old ruleset only, and not the amendments. We need to keep the ruleset thread accurate to make it as easy as possible for citizen to review and understand the rules.

-- Ravensfire

Click to expand...

I agree totally that the law needs to be kept current, and not editing in the change was the triggering event for the confusion. We should also have the amendments which have been passed, which show old and new text. That way a question of prior law can be answered.

Those should probably be in subsequent posts. The posts there were up there did not include the sections removed, and did not help to clarify the matter.

Something to add to the CJ's duties in the Procedures!

-- Ravensfire

As the Civ 3 Demogame is coming to a close, I should be able to format and maintain the laws in the same way I did the DG7 ones if it would help. Please let me know if you would like me to do this.

DG7 Laws

ravensfire said:

Those should probably be in subsequent posts. The posts there were up there did not include the sections removed, and did not help to clarify the matter.

Something to add to the CJ's duties in the Procedures!

-- Ravensfire

Click to expand...

Just to make sure I am getting this right, we should add the duty of constitution orginazation to the CJ?

Furiey said:

As the Civ 3 Demogame is coming to a close, I should be able to format and maintain the laws in the same way I did the DG7 ones if it would help. Please let me know if you would like me to do this.

DG7 Laws

Click to expand...

I don't have any problem with this, if you are willing to do it.
Thank-you

Black_Hole said:

Just to make sure I am getting this right, we should add the duty of constitution orginazation to the CJ?

Click to expand...

I'm suggesting that we require the CJ do several things after an amendment passes. First, add the entry into Needed Things to get the ruleset updated. Second, add a post to the ruleset thread with the old section and the new section as a changelog. Third, make sure that the ruleset does get updated correctly.

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire said:

I'm suggesting that we require the CJ do several things after an amendment passes. First, add the entry into Needed Things to get the ruleset updated. Second, add a post to the ruleset thread with the old section and the new section as a changelog. Third, make sure that the ruleset does get updated correctly.

-- Ravensfire

Click to expand...

would

Maintain the Constitution and Code of Laws threads

Click to expand...

be sufficent?

Also if we change the Pro Tem appointment system we need to remove this line from the CJ's duties:

Appoint all Pro-Tem justices and seek confirmation by the President

Click to expand...

Agree, Blackhole why dont you just throw together a list of what we are changing so we can agree to it and move on.

Swissempire said:

Question: Do ALL the justices have to rectify the procedures, or just the majority?
------------
Seperate Idea: May be you can have a list where people who would like to pro-tem so they can gain judicial experience can put there name forward BEFORE HAND, so when a justice is absent you don't have to play favorite or we dob't have people jockeying for justices that share said persons opinion on the matter. Just choose the next on the list. I think this would be more fair for everyone. And no, this is not just me wanting to pro-tem. I'm sure there are a lot of people(actuaally i know there are) who would like a chnce to get there hands dirtty and show people what the have got.

Click to expand...

Hey, i wonder what the answer to his question is, and what people think of his idea

@Swissempire: It's not a bad idea to have those who want to be pro tems make that known but I don't think it's a good idea for justices to have to choose from the list.

As for your question, do you mean rectify as in fix or ratify as in adopt? Since you want to be a justice (elected or pro tem) I'd like to hear what you think the answer is to the question.

Both, and my feelings as a potential justice are that the Judicial System is a system of give-or-take and comprimise. In JR's, its majority rules, and in this matter I think it should be the same. There are three justices for a reason!

P.S. I hope i'm not wrong!