Reorganizing the Judiciary

If we really are going with the dangerously simplistic judiciary, I propose simplifing and stregthening the judiciary. (most ironically, I got this idea when wiritng up a proposal for Apolyton's DG)

We restructure the entire judiciary. The court would only consist of three justices. My reason in removing the JA and PD is this: With a simple document, you don't need people to explain it. We could allow JAs and PDs appointed for trials as need be.

They would serve three staggered terms, three months long, and be appointed by the president with council approval. Why? With a simple constitution, the court will most definetly make lots of decisions define the laws. This will reduce the pressure justices feel from the public to make more popular, and perhaps bad, decisions.

Just a thought...

Hmm... I like it, but instead of three, I'd be much more comfortable with two term long terms.

Sounds workable.

For any standard term length longer than a single term I'd like to see some method of removal.

That's workable, but I prefer the old method. I might approve of it if each justice is elected by a vote of the people for one-month terms.

how about adding one more element. Making an Attorney General position, just so the people can elect one member of the judicial system. Its similar to Judge Advocate, just named differently. and appoint Public defenders or if we incorporate the rpg we make the AG and PD system part of that and have law firms, just some ideas

How about adding another element?
The judicacy should be the only people writing into the book of law.

Now how could that work?

there will be 2 ways for law-implementation:

1) citizen request
If a citizen wants a law to be implemented, he or she can post a "prototype" of the law in the judicacy thread with a link to a citizen discussion for that "prototype".
The judges will then review the law and write in into the book if the majority of them approoves it. They will be allowed to implement changes to wording and content of the law.
If they dont see that law needed or fit, they decline it and give a reason why to the requester.
If the law is declined, the requester can post a "law enforcement poll" to decide whether the judges MUST implement the law (rewording is allowed) or not.
If the law was changed and the requester is not satisfied with it, he can post a "law challenging poll" to let the citizenry decide between his and the judges version of the law.

2) judical initiative
at any time, the judges can implement a law directly by a judical majority vote.
if any citizen is not content with a judically implemented law, he can post a "law removal poll" where the citizenry decides about declining the law.


this way we could have a VERY fast law implementation... which we will need when starting with CONS-only


to the judges themselves:
they should be elected at the FIRST elections of the nation.
their term should be indefinite
if any citizen feels discontent with one or any of them, he can post a "distrust-poll" to decide whether judical elections should be held. if the citizenry decides with single majority that the judges should be reelected, then at the next regular national election cycle the judicacy is also on the list.
if any judge applies to another position, then for that election cycle judical reelections are automatically set up. the judge must post at least 1 week before the nominations start that he wants to leave his office.

this way the judges could be independant of any other national leadership.

ah, and of course the judges should not be defenders or prosecutors... they should judge, nothing else... and the idea of appointed attorneys for each case is brilliant imho.

I still think the appointment to three month terms would allow justices to make unpopular, but better, decisions. If you really wanted a method of removal, allow the President to iniate a vote of no confidence in a justice to force a to temporarily stop his duties while his performance is reviewed by others.

My goal here is for a more independent judiciary, for the sake of fairness

I agree with this plan. I think it is a great way to reorganize the Judiciary and if it doesn't work out it is fairly easy to change the Constitution and we have a blueprint to go back to.

@disorganizer - The judiciary should have absolutely no power to write or change laws. That is the province of the people (the Congress). The judiciary can have the position of determining if a new rule is legal or conflicts with other rules but never to legislate under their own authority.

@shaitan: why not? the people still would have a veto right to all those new laws... but it would drastically speed up our process of lawmaking.

We don't need a faster lawmaking process. That leads directly to too many laws. More importantly, it completely erases the line between the Legislature (law makers) and Judiciary (judges of the law).

not if only the 3 people concerned with using them decide which ones will be there... the "enforcement process" to get a law into the book around the 3 judge's optinions should be rather difficult.

imho, our main problem is that anybody can setup a discussion and a poll about a useless law... its easy to talk our citizenry into approoving a law which they maybe even dont understand or just dont care. its just a matter of advertisments...

So restore the President's veto power. That's the reason that it was there. It was removed because people did not want a check on their ability to make laws held by a Leader. I doubt that having the check held by a triumvirate will be seen as much better.

It is the other way around this time:
The Triumvirate will have the power to implement laws, but the veto now is with the people. The triumvirate can run the country, and if something goes against the will of the people they can intervene.

With the presidential veto power it was in the power of one person to counter decissions of the whole citizenry, which is a totally different story.

I don't like it. The rules are what regulate the actions of all of the players. The creation of those rules should not be in the hands of 3 people.

I don't think that anybody should have veto power, neither the President nor the Judiciary.

Moved to DG3 forums.

My first reaction is that I like the idea of having 3-month terms with 1/3 of the vacancies up for grabs in any given month.

Not so sure I like the appointment-only aspect, and no so sure I want to make them super-powerful... I'd prefer them to just have "standard judicial branch authority" and not legislate too, and I'd prefer to see some more open process than appointment - I'd be OK with election by the council, if we don't want election by the people at large - but appointment by the president seems to be making the president a bit too strong.

I'd want a mechanism of removal for any term over 1 month. Appointment by the Pres would be okay if that appointment needed to be confirmed by the Congress (poll of the players). Definitely no part of the legislation process except to check that new rules don't conflict with old ones.