Term 5 - Judiciary: The Hall of Justitia

[Bootstoots]

I would prefer it if the Judiciary went back to the ordinary review style where each Judicial member posts his/her own opinion separately. I do not doubt that the Judiciary was unanimous but I do think that the Judiciary should go back to the old style of reviews as mentioned above. I think that it would show more subtle differences in the reviews as well, things that could be left open to further interpretation and discussion.

Just my two gold.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I think that it would show more subtle differences in the reviews as well, things that could be left open to further interpretation and discussion.

And there Boots, you have exactly stated why a Judicial Review should NOT be done in that manner.

Consider the first review in Term 3. Go ahead, read it, I'll wait. No, you don't need a link to it - it's in the Judicial Log.

Read it? Good. What was the Majority Opinion? What was the Minority Opinion? Pretty tough to find those. In fact, you have three responses that are marginally related to each other.

That's bad.

A Judicial Review is the opportunity for the Judiciary to respond to a question of Law posed by a citizen. It is the duty of the Judiciary to provide that citizen with a clear and definite answer to that question. At least, a clear answer of law. Anything less than that should be regarded as a failure by the citizen, with a push for a single, clear answer.

Look at the 2nd review of Term 4. We had the verbage nailed down, and it clearly stated our opinion. There was some concern raised about how the opinion would be interpreted. To ensure that any interpretation would go exactly (or at least mostly) the way we wanted, a commentary was added to the opinion that did make things very clear.

The comment "subtle differences" you made leads to nothing more than more Judicial Reviews and Public Investigations. When it come to interpreting the Law, citizens should expect clear guidelines and responses from the Judiciary that define exactly what the law is. Anything less and, as we've shown in this game, we have chaos.

I strongly support discussing Judicial issues, and in fact there was a brief discussion about this exact issue early in the review process. This IS was is needed - commentary by citizens directed towards the Judiciary prior to their analysis. When the Judiciary posts their Opinions (both Majority and Minority), I expect the Majority Opinion to state in very clear terms the answer to the questions posed by the citizen.

I understand you and I have different viewpoints on this subject. I know you enjoy the political aspect of this game, of which these Judicial Requests are a part of it. I hope you understand my viewpoint though, that of providing those who wish to play the game, and the roles within it, with a clear set of rules and with clear answers when there is a question.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by ravensfire


And there Boots, you have exactly stated why a Judicial Review should NOT be done in that manner.

Consider the first review in Term 3. Go ahead, read it, I'll wait. No, you don't need a link to it - it's in the Judicial Log.

Read it? Good. What was the Majority Opinion? What was the Minority Opinion? Pretty tough to find those. In fact, you have three responses that are marginally related to each other.

That's bad.

What would a review be like if the Judiciary could not agree on something privately? Would it not be similar? I do acknowledge that there should be some private discussion on this to help formulate a consensus, but if I were a Judicial member, I would not be kept from posting my review publicly.

A Judicial Review is the opportunity for the Judiciary to respond to a question of Law posed by a citizen. It is the duty of the Judiciary to provide that citizen with a clear and definite answer to that question. At least, a clear answer of law. Anything less than that should be regarded as a failure by the citizen, with a push for a single, clear answer.

As a citizen, I would not regard that as a failure, but instead I would see it as an area where the ruleset is unclear, and probably subject to an amendment.

Look at the 2nd review of Term 4. We had the verbage nailed down, and it clearly stated our opinion. There was some concern raised about how the opinion would be interpreted. To ensure that any interpretation would go exactly (or at least mostly) the way we wanted, a commentary was added to the opinion that did make things very clear.

That makes perfect sense. I have no objections.

I have run out of time to post right now; I'll post the other part of my response tomorrow.

 

[zorven]

I see there has been some good discussion while I was offline. First off, Bootstoots, as CJ I will continue to run Judicial Reviews as we have been this and last term. Second, I believe ravensfire outlined the reasons very well. The Judicial Review is a tool used to clarify vague or ambiguous sections of the Constitution or Code of Laws. Providing 3 seperate opinions only leads to more uncertainty and confusion. That is not the intended outcome of the Judicial Review process.

What would a review be like if the Judiciary could not agree on something privately? Would it not be similar? I do acknowledge that there should be some private discussion on this to help formulate a consensus, but if I were a Judicial member, I would not be kept from posting my review publicly.

If at least 2 members of could not agree on a Judicial Review request, then there would be no Opinion given by the Judiciary. I would see no problem in that case with having each member write their opinion, but there would be no official, binding Opinion by the Judiciary in the matter.

As a citizen, I would not regard that as a failure, but instead I would see it as an area where the ruleset is unclear, and probably subject to an amendment.

A citizen requests a Judicial Review precisely because the ruleset is unclear. If the Judiciary responds with an unclear ruling, then that is a failure on the part of the Judiciary. The Judiciary needs to provide clear, concise guidance on matters involving unclear rulesets. Providing 3 seperate opinions does not accomplish this. If the Judiciary cannot agree on a matter, then there is definetly a need to amend the laws.

 

[GenMarshall]

Ill join in this discussion When I return from School.

Also DZ requested that I do a Judicial Review, Im not sure what he is talking about since it has already been posted here by our CJ . If DZ wants a Judicial Review from me, he would have to wait untill I get back around 4:00pm. And If I have to do one, then we would have to hunt down Vander and tell him to post also.

 

[zorven]

CivGeneral - if you are referring to the chat, I believe he was joking about what was being said at the time.

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by CivGeneral
Ill join in this discussion When I return from School.

Also DZ requested that I do a Judicial Review, Im not sure what he is talking about since it has already been posted here by our CJ . If DZ wants a Judicial Review from me, he would have to wait untill I get back around 4:00pm. And If I have to do one, then we would have to hunt down Vander and tell him to post also.

I suspect he's referring to the current custom, of the JA and PD posting their concurrence (or not) after each ruling posted by the CJ.

 

[zorven]

It was a pleasure to serve in the Judiciary this term with CivGeneral and Vander. Everyone within the Judiciary and those who posted here were intellectually engaged, civil, and in the end, interested in what was best for Fanatica. I would also like to thank Bootstoots for giving us something to do

And so, I say farewell to the Hall of Justitia in Noshuret and hello to the Governor's Mansion in Thebes.

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by zorven
It was a pleasure to serve in the Judiciary this term with CivGeneral and Vander. Everyone within the Judiciary and those who posted here were intellectually engaged, civil, and in the end, interested in what was best for Fanatica. I would also like to thank Bootstoots for giving us something to do

And so, I say farewell to the Hall of Justitia in Noshuret and hello to the Governor's Mansion in Thebes.

Oh, no problem, I love giving the Judiciary things to do. BTW, looking back through the thread, I would also like to apologize to ravensfire; it looks like I forgot to reply to the other part of his post.