Judicial Review - Term 4 - Request 1

zorven · Apr 1, 2004

The Term 4 court has accepted donsig's request for a Judicial Review. Specificially, donsig is questioning the legality of CoS M.1.d

Code:

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

All interested parties are invited to discuss the issue here.

Previous Term's Discussion

DaveShack · Apr 1, 2004

The term 3 judiciary settled this matter already in this ruling. Nothing says that the result of a ruling needs to be a long, complicated post.

The current sitting court is responsible for all unresolved cases, current and previous.

donsig · Apr 2, 2004

Originally posted by DaveShack
The term 3 judiciary settled this matter already in this ruling. Nothing says that the result of a ruling needs to be a long, complicated post.

The current sitting court is responsible for all unresolved cases, current and previous.

Code:

 c. Judicial Discussion
    1. The Judiciary shall then meet privately to discuss 
       review
    2. The Judiciary shall produce a Majority opinion, and 
       if needed, a Minority opinion.
    3. The Chief Justice shall post both opinions, including 
       the signers of each, in the Judicial Thread and the 
       Judicial Log.
      A. Each Justice should post a confirmatory message 
         which may also include an explanatory note. Any 
         such note is not part of the official record.

Right, it doesn't have to be long and complicated but it does have to be posted, etc.

ps: Do I need to ask for a JR on whether that post by Peri fulfills the clause of the CoS quoted above?

zorven · Apr 3, 2004

donsig beat me to it. The post by Peri is not a valid "opinion" of the court. I don't think donsig needs to file a JR on this issue. However, if someone thinks that the post by Peri is valid, they will have to file a JR to try and have that post declared valid.

donsig · Apr 4, 2004

Whew, am I glad I don't have to file that JR. Since I'm still waiting for a decision on a JR I filed in term one I hate to think how long it would take to get a decision on a new JR... :rolleyes:

zorven · Apr 4, 2004

There has been no on-topic discussion in this thread in the 3 days it has been open. Consider this a warning that discussions will be closed in approximately 24 hours.

donsig · Apr 5, 2004

Originally posted by zorven
There has been no on-topic discussion in this thread in the 3 days it has been open. Consider this a warning that discussions will be closed in approximately 24 hours.

Seeing as we already discussed this in the original JR discussion thread I for one see no need to repeat the pros and cons here unless our currrent judiciary will not be taking that discussion into account here.

I would like the CJ to post whether the judiciary members will be reviewing that thread or not. If not I'd like a chance to re-post my views here.

zorven · Apr 6, 2004

It seems my post of last night is gone. Anyway, discussions are closed.

@ donsig - both Vander and I read the previous discussions.

DaveShack · Apr 7, 2004

I think I'll resist the urge to call a JR on the subject of whether it is legal for an incomplete court to decide a JR -- however you should be aware that it would be a good idea to get that little detail taken care of.

DaveShack · Apr 7, 2004

During T3 I was prohibited by the standard from posting this directly. However now I'm not constrained by that rule, so here is the unedited version of the majority opinion in T3-JR4 on which court handles pre-existing cases. In this quick and dirty opinion I did not quote specific passages from the law but it should not take much imagination.

Originally sent via PM from DaveShack to Peri, 3/27/04 02:16AM
Sorry, I have been even more buried at work than before, and haven't even looked at the forum. Guess a simple, straightforward opinion on this one is appropriate at this time instead of taking time to come up with a fancy legalese opinion. (yes, this is the simple and straightforward version...

The constitutional article on officials being elected to fixed terms clearly supercedes lower law, and the normal weasel words about "as provided by law" are not present in this article. This means that regardless of good intentions on the part of the authors of the standards providing for the old judiciary to carry forward old cases (myself included in said authors), it would definitely be inappropriate to force work on unwilling former justices, nor would it be fair to the voters who may have expressly chosen not to reelect them.

We are then left with two possible solutions. Either the new court can handle continuation of the cases automatically, or the case can lapse at the end of the court's term and a new case has to be refiled. A middle ground would be to say that the case is not refiled, it just needs to be reconfirmed by the original party who brought the case in the first place. It would be beyond the court's authority to set a time limit, given the provision for hearnig cases in a timely manner (don't recall what the standard is for that one, and it's very late at night...)

So I think we have to take the backlog (and pass it on to the next court), and make an observation that the originator could withdraw the case, especially since the reason for requesting a ruling is probably far in the past anyway.

Judicial Review - Term 4 - Request 1

zorven

12,000 Suns

DaveShack

Inventor

donsig

Low level intermediary

zorven

12,000 Suns

donsig

Low level intermediary

zorven

12,000 Suns

donsig

Low level intermediary

zorven

12,000 Suns

DaveShack

Inventor

DaveShack

Inventor

Similar threads