Judicial Review - T3 - 4

[Peri]

Donsig has requested a Judicial Review on the following:

I would like to request a judicial review concerning the disposition of the unfinished term two JRs. Who should complete them? I respectfully ask the court to determine the applicable laws to answer this question. If the court refuses to do so then I will request a judicial review about the judicial review process.

[ravensfire]

CoS M.1.d

    2. All proceedings started under one Court shall 
       continue with that Court through the conclusion of 
       that proceeding.

The Term 2 court is not handling any new cases, merely finishing up cases started during their term. There is no conflict about exceeded terms here - the court can only accept actions until their term is over. At that point, that court, with the presumed expertise and knowledge in that area, will handle the case.

-- Ravensfire

[donsig]

The conflict is with the constitution and the principles underlying the demogame. According to the constitution:

Article F.  The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice
            and two Associate Justices. These three justices are 
            tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting 
            laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed 
            by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional 
            responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the 
            Judicial Branch.

Article G.  All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All vacant 
            elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a 
            citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

Article H.  No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership 
            (President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial 
            Governor) simultaneously.

Section D.2.c can also be applied here. It states that the judiciary Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and standards.

Having the term two justices form legally binding opinions:

1) infringes on the authority of the duly elected term three justices;

2) has the effect of indeterminably extending the term of the term two justices, violating the *fixed term* called for in article G;

3) raises a conflict with Article H since it could concievably (and does in actuality) create a situation where a citizen holds two offices concurrently. In this case Peri would be both AJ and and CJ at the same time while Ravensfire would be CJ and MIA simulataneously.

There is also no compelling reason that the term three judiciary cannot complete the outstanding cases. We have a constitutionally valid mechanism for replacing a justice mid-term. If someone can come in mid-term and help to complete cases there is no reason the sitting court cannot do the same with cases carried over from term to term.

In light of these conflicts, section M.1.d.2 of the CoS should be declared unconstitional and removed from the Three Books.

[DaveShack]

It really would be helpful if justices were allowed to reveal their feelings on an issue and engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. Instead we're stuck with "asking questions"...

Does a pro-tem justice "hold" the office?

If a justice is recused from one case, does he/she continue to "hold" the office with respect to other cases?

Is article G intended to:

• Force office holders to vacate their office when the term ends, to protect the people
• Allow the office holder to leave office at the end of the term, to protect the office holder
• Both

What was the authors' intent when writing the CoS provisions in question, M.1.d and the equivalent clause for CC proceedings?

It seems like this issue is being framed in terms of black and white, with only two possible outcomes: the T2 judiciary is forced to finish up all the cases, or the T3 judiciary is forced to take over all the cases. Is there another alternative which avoids the conflict?

[donsig]

I don't know if it's necessary to get into a semantic debate over what it means to *hold* an office. In my book, if someone can sign-off on a legally binding opinion then he or she meets the criteria for *holding* office in the judiciary.

I think the main intent behind article G was to protect the people and ensure that those not returned to office do not continue to exercise authority.

I have yet to be able to fathom the authors' intent in any clause of the CoS.

Sure there are grey areas you can explore. How about sitting on these things till term four and letting them deal with it. How about the judiciary resigning, Ravensfire resigns as MIA and we get the President to appoint the old term two justices to their respective places on the judiciary. Then the term two and term three judiciary would be the same making this moot. I'm sure if we use our imagination we can think up more grey areas. As for coming up with a different legal remedy that is consistent with the constitution, I don't see one.

[DaveShack]

As for grey areas, let's see if I can put it as a question.

What would happen if the originators of the pending JR requests withdrew those requests and resubmitted them to the current judiciary?

[ravensfire]

Does a pro-tem justice "hold" the office?

Yes, but limited based on the situation (see answer below). In the event of an absence, the pro-tem would be for all cases during that time period.

If a justice is recused from one case, does he/she continue to "hold" the office with respect to other cases?

Yes, the Justice is only recused for the conflicting case.

Is article G intended to:

• Force office holders to vacate their office when the term ends, to protect the people
• Allow the office holder to leave office at the end of the term, to protect the office holder
• Both

Mostly A. It's also there to protect the interests of the newly elected citizen.

What was the authors' intent when writing the CoS provisions in question, M.1.d and the equivalent clause for CC proceedings?

I hope I can shed some light here.

The intent was simple - provide continuity for judicial actions that are started near the end of a term or continue beyond the end of the term. The interests of the people are best served by this process. Some through needs to be given by the Court towards the end of the term when it comes to accepting cases. Example, Cyc during Term 1 requested that several requests be made to the Term 2 court, not his. Likewise, at the end of Term 2, a request by CT was requested to be made to the Term 3 court.

Imagine a worst-case scenario, which is somewhat based on a current situation. A CC is initiated towards the end of a term. It's accepted, but then delays start. Finally, advocates for both sides are found, and the allegations investigated. The court accepts the allegations, and tries to find a remedy. No remedy can be found, but the Term ends.

At this point, most of the work has been done by the existing Court (A). A new Court (B) now comes into office. Should B accept everything that A has done and proceed? MUST they accept everything A has done and proceed? Is everything done so far discarded and the entire process started over?

Or, should A, who is familiar with the case and has been working on the case, continue to do so? I feel it is in the best interests of both the Citizens of Fanatica and Justice to keep all active cases started a particular court with that court until those actions are done.

It seems like this issue is being framed in terms of black and white, with only two possible outcomes: the T2 judiciary is forced to finish up all the cases, or the T3 judiciary is forced to take over all the cases. Is there another alternative which avoids the conflict?

Err, kind of. Any active case that is early in the process should be able to move to the new court should all parties involved (both CJ's and the citizens involved in the case) agree. Otherwise, it is pretty black and white - one of the two courts has got to work on the cases.

-- Ravensfire

[donsig]

Originally posted by DaveShack
As for grey areas, let's see if I can put it as a question.

What would happen if the originators of the pending JR requests withdrew those requests and resubmitted them to the current judiciary?

We'd have to start all over, delaying the (needed) decisions - and for what? That would not lighten the burden of the term three judiciary, it would give them more (unnecessary) work since they would have to duplicate the efforts to this point. The key question here is who will (or should) make the legally binding decisions on these matters?

I'll be blunt and to the point: I ran for a spot on the term three judiciary and was rejected by the voters. That clearly indicates to me that the *will of the people* is such that they do not want me rendering judicial decisions at this time. As much as I'd like to be a part of crafting the opinions, it is not what the people want.

And I still see no compelling reason why continuity is needed. The current justices can certainly read the Three Books and the relevent discussion threads and hand down a decision.

[donsig]

Gimme a break. OK, it's been a week or so but I'll play it your way:

I am officially done making statements in this thread.

[Peri]

This thread is now closed. A ruling will be produced shortly.

Thanks.