Term 3 – Nominations for Chief Justice

[Furiey]

The Chief Justice is part of the Judicial Branch along with the Public Defender and Judge Advocate, and is tasked with upholding, clarifying and reviewing all changes to the Constitution and its supporting laws through Judicial Reviews, and upholding the rights of all citizens through Investigations. The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.

The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.

Please submit nominations for the Chief Justice in this thread and Accept or Decline any nominations you may receive. Self nominations are allowed. Citizens may only run for one elected position.

Nominations will close and elections open 00:00 GMT on the 27 September (that’s 8pm EDT 26 September).

Please Note: I shall start closing the nomination threads and posting the polls approx 1½ hours early at 22:30 GMT (6:30 PM EDT), 26 September.

[greekguy]

I nominate DaveShack and Strider.

[Civlord]

I second DaveShack.

[Nobody]

i second strider.

[Strider]

Holy hell! It's already nominations for Term 3?! Wait! I just got elected as Judge Advocate though!

I think I'm getting old, there are large periods of time (like the pass month) that I have little recollections of. Wait, nevermind. Just ignore that statement.

Anyway, I will remain undecided at the moment. Going to have to talk to my girlfriend and see if she has anything big planned in the next month. So, please wait just a day or two before you send out the assassins.

[Nobody]

Anyway, I will remain undecided at the moment. Going to have to talk to my girlfriend and see if she has anything big planned in the next month. So, please wait just a day or two before you send out the assassins.

i gurantee she has somthing bigger than online civfantics communitys, so your screwed. And unfortunatly only iv accepted payment i cant stop the hit

[ravensfire]

I wish to nominate Bootstoots to the office of Chief Justice.

During the past term, he's demonstrated his wisdom and knowledge on some difficult Judicial Reviews. Bootstoots has shown in previous demogames that he has patience, concern and a sense of duty to the DG concept as a whole. He's persuasive, skilled and organized, exactly the skills needed.

Bootstoots is an ideal candidate for Chief Justice. He has my utmost respect and admiration.

As an aside, I wish to restate and affirm my statement that I will not be running for any office in the Judiciary. Consider this a self-nomination and a decline for each Judicial office. It's time for new citizens to take on the challenges of the Judiciary, and Bootstoots is the perfect citizen to lead them.

-- Ravensfire

[Strider]

For once, I will agree with Ravensfire. Bootstoots, my long time ally and friend, it did not seem very long ago that having both of us inside of the Judiciary was enough to make someone have a heart attack. Yet, here we stand, both of us having secured Judicial poistions.

Bootstoots, you have always stood behind me, and I will thank you for that. Yet, now it is my turn to stand behind you. If you were to accept your nomination, I will opt out for one of the lower Judicial poistions (either Judge Advocate again or Public Defender).

Finally, we may beable to save this game.

[DaveShack]

I accept the nomination.

[Civlord]

Go, DaveShack! We need a strong Judiciary!

[Bootstoots]

Thank you, ravensfire and Strider both. I apologize for not responding earlier; I didn't see this until now. I will Accept this honor.

[Bootstoots]

I now have a question for my opponent, DaveShack. In the discussion thread on DG7JR8, you had some opinions on how the law should be interpreted that differed from almost everybody else's intepretations in the thread. So my question to you is this: How would you have ruled in this case, question by question? Here are the relevant questions and the Judicial rulings, from the Judicial Log:

Question: May we take 1 city per civ, or 7 cities total, from any combination of civs?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may only take 1 city per civ. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.

Question: Question: Does recapturing a city we built count as taking a city from a civ?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may recapture cities we've founded without counting them as conquering a foreign city. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.

Question: May we abandon a city from a civ to take another city from that civ?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may not abandon a city we've conquered to take another city from that civ. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.

Question: If we capture a city, then the civ recaptures that city back, may we recapture that city, any other city the civ has, or no city from that civ?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may recapture cities we've conquered and lost, but may not conquer another city from that civ. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.

Question: If we capture a city from Civ A that was founded by Civ B, and we keep that city, which civ did we take that city from, A (who we conquered it from) or B (who founded it)?
By a 2-0-1 decision, the origin of cities is based on the founder of the city, not the current owner. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.

[DaveShack]

I will answer each of the questions twice, by a strict interpretation of the words contained in the law, and by an interpretation of the intent of the law since the law may not contain the exact words which reflect the intent of the framers.

Note: As a citizen I argue for the position I want, not necessarily the correct one. As a Justice I'm forced to ignore what I want and follow the law.

Note: The decision of whether to use strict (meanings of the written law) vs intent (meaning of the idea behind the written law) is on a case by case basis.

Question 1: May we take 1 city per civ, or 7 cities total, from any combination of civs?

Strict: 1 per civ Intent: 1 per civ

Question 2: Question: Does recapturing a city we built count as taking a city from a civ?

Strict: The law regulates the number of captures. Once we capture a city that takes up our one and only capture, no matter who owned it before. Intent: Recaptures don't count as a capture since it's our city.

Question 3: May we abandon a city from a civ to take another city from that civ?

Strict: No, by the reasoning in question 2 our only capture has already been expended. Intent: We can abandon and cature a different city. The intent is that we can hold a maximum of one city per opponent civ.

Question 4: If we capture a city, then the civ recaptures that city back, may we recapture that city, any other city the civ has, or no city from that civ?

Strict: None, same reasoning as question 2. Intent: We can recapture that city or capture any other city, as the true intent of the rule is that we can hold one from each civ.

Question 5: If we capture a city from Civ A that was founded by Civ B, and we keep that city, which civ did we take that city from, A (who we conquered it from) or B (who founded it)?

Strict: Civ A, the city comes from the civ who holds it at the time of capture. We're out of luck if we already hold a city from Civ A. Intent: Civ B, the original owner.

[Furiey]

Please Note: I shall start closing the nomination threads and posting the polls approx 1½ hours early at 22:30 GMT (6:30 PM EDT), 26 September.

[Bootstoots]

Thanks for the response, though I'll have to disagree with you on a few points, particularly your strict interpretation of question 4. The law is fairly clear in that it allows us to capture one city from each foreign civilization. It does not regulate number of captures of the same city. But I'll let that point slide for the moment.

[Bootstoots]

Here is my speech for this election. I will post it in the election thread as well when that is posted.

Greetings, fellow citizens of Fanatikos! I, Bootstoots, am seeking election to the position of Chief Justice. I am seeking this office for several reasons. First, I strongly like the idea of a game where the citizens make their own laws and elect officials to interpret them. I really do like interpreting the laws of Fanatikos, and as Public Defender this term I have done my best to give full, comprehensive reviews of laws whenever the need to interpret them has arisen. I have so far had five full terms of Judicial experience, including my current position of Public Defender, and I look forward to leading the Judiciary of Fanatikos. If elected, I will be fully impartial and will rule based on what I feel to be a fair and just interpretation of the law. Legally, I am a moderate constructionist. I take into account both intent and wording in my ruling. I am perfectly willing to rule based on a law’s intent if that intent is clear. However, I will never rule against a law’s text if its text is clear and its intent backs that up, regardless of in-game consequences. I, of course, do not believe the Judiciary is to legislate from the bench.

If I am elected Chief Justice, I have a few specific plans. First, I plan to make some changes to the Judicial Procedures. Overall, I’ll use ravensfire’s procedures – I think they are very good in practice and I support the vast majority of them. However, I do think they need minor touching up, and here’s how I’d change them:

• No abstentions allowed in rulings. (This isn’t intended as a jab at Strider, but I feel that it is each justice’s responsibility to post clear and decisive rulings. I feel that abstentions are simply inappropriate for a justice to make, and they have the potential to tie up the court with 1-1-1 outcomes)
• A requirement for the Court to finish all business by the end of the term, unless that is completely impossible. I’d also allow the Court to defer cases filed less than 48 hours before the end of the term to the next Court.
• The removal of the “No Punishment” option on sentencing polls. (If a citizen is found guilty of breaking the law, I think an official warning is the least that is appropriate)
• The addition of a “Public Apology” option on sentencing polls
• Allowing just one justice instead of two to overrule the Chief Justice on the issue of the merit of Judicial Reviews (like Citizen Complaints/Investigations, if one justice thinks a review should be heard, I feel that it should be)
• Adding a provision to allow a citizen to request a discussion thread on any particular Judicial Review, to be posted by any justice
• The addition of a clause to prohibit double jeopardy
• Possibly a few other changes that I haven’t thought of yet

Also, I’d encourage citizens to take an active role in Judicial proceedings, through the discussion thread, a lower requirement to override me on merit decisions. I will rule reviews to have merit unless the decision is very obvious. Additionally, I’ll manage the docket to allow for some cases to take a higher priority than others if they clearly need to. Generally cases will still be reviewed in the order they are filed, but if there is something critical, it will be allowed to take priority over non-critical matters

In conclusion, I feel that I will be a strong and capable Chief Justice if elected. I will rule in a just manner, and I will manage the Judiciary to the best of my ability. A vote for me is a vote for experience and competence, and I will most certainly not let Fanatikos down in this pledge.

[Gerikes]

To candidates:

Do you believe that the principle of 'stare decisis' should be followed in all court rulings by which a civilian brings up a claim that has already been ruled upon? Do you believe all rulings by future courts should hold such precedent? More specifically, if a court issue were to come up that is very similar to a previous case, would you treat the outcome of that case as part of your reason for deciding upon the new case? If so, what factors of the old case would you consider?

- Age of case?
- Change in Fanatikos society since the case?
- Persons on the Judiciary when the prior conclusion was found?
- Personal views on the past case?
- Laws since changed since the past case?
- Others?

[DaveShack]

In the interest of a strong and victorious Fanatikos, I will withdraw from this nomination to take up candidacy for Governor of Styx. We are better off with a Chief Justice who is a dedicated jurist and does not desire another role, and a dedicated governor in lieu of forcing the President to make an appointment to such an important position.

[Furiey]

This Nomination Thread is now closed for nominations. Please continue any debates/discussions in the Election Thread

Thank You