Chief Justice Appointment

[Chieftess]

But you can't have a JR without a CJ, right?

 

[donsig]

But you can't have a JR without a CJ, right?

I don't think there is anything that says the PD and JA can't conduct judicial business if the CJ office is vacant. I'm assuming the JA and PD are exhibiting patience since it would be better to handle important JRs with a full judiciary.

What's the timeline for a full judiciary? Another day for the run-off to end. If the run-off produces a clear winner who wishes to serve as president then we wait for the censor to validate the election. Shouldn't take long. Then the pres has to call for interested parties to be CJ, wait 72 hours and then make the appointment. Looks like four days till we can start JRs.

Can this time frame be shortened? Strider withdrew. If the censor validates Chillaxation as pres now then we save a day. If we use the time you called for interested parties to be CJ as the start of the 72 hour clock we'd still need to wait a couple days for the 72 hours to pass. Quickest we could get a full court in place is a couple days and I'm not sure if all the steps outlined in this paragraph are even legal.

 

[Nobody]

What's the timeline for a full judiciary? Another day for the run-off to end. If the run-off produces a clear winner who wishes to serve as president then we wait for the censor to validate the election. Shouldn't take long. Then the pres has to call for interested parties to be CJ, wait 72 hours and then make the appointment. Looks like four days till we can start JRs.

Can this time frame be shortened? Strider withdrew. If the censor validates Chillaxation as pres now then we save a day. If we use the time you called for interested parties to be CJ as the start of the 72 hour clock we'd still need to wait a couple days for the 72 hours to pass. Quickest we could get a full court in place is a couple days and I'm not sure if all the steps outlined in this paragraph are even legal.

As the law is written it dosent say the presidnt has to wait 72 before making there appiontment, all it says is that after 72 hours the president can apoint anybody

 

[BCLG100]

It's quite clear that there are several people interested.

The first step is to allow the Presidential election to finish, and for the Censor to declare a winner of that election. That person will then be able to fill the office of the Chief Justice.

-- Ravensfire

well i said i had only been browsing, so out of interest who are these people that have come forward and asked to do it, black_hole might be interested if he's still playing.

 

[donsig]

As the law is written it dosent say the presidnt has to wait 72 before making there appiontment, all it says is that after 72 hours the president can apoint anybody

Here is the pertinent section:

V. Judicial Vacancies
a. The President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.
b. This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll.

The law does not say that after 72 hours the president can appoint anybody. It says the president can appoint anybody if nobody comes forward to say they want the job. WAIT - not *nobody* - poor choice of words there. If no one comes forward to say they want the job within 72 hours THEN the president can appoint any one.

Unfortunately the law as written is unclear on a few very important points. First, if some one does come forward who wants the job, does the president have to wait the full 72 hours before appointing someone? Second, must the president appoint someone from among those who came forward? Third, what happens if there is no president 72 hours after the CJ office is declared vacant?

 

[Nobody]

Thats what i thought it meant also, your questions at the end (saying problems with the law) is what i was abusing. Anyway lets just let this thread die and wait for real president do his thang.

 

[GeorgeOP]

I wrote the law, so I'll tell you my reasoning behind it. The President is allowed to appoint any citizen at any time. They just have to either not have a current office or they have to give up their current office. I also didn't want some back door deal done, and wanted to have the President announce it so that all elgible citizens knew about the openning. But the fear was that at one point the only people that wanted the office already have another office and wouldn't want to give it up. So we wrote a clause in that allowed the President to officially post an open call, and after 72 hours they could appoint someone who already had an office. There was no intent to mandate a 72 hour waiting period before the President makes a desicion, nor do I think one is implied in the law.

 

[Black_Hole]

well i said i had only been browsing, so out of interest who are these people that have come forward and asked to do it, black_hole might be interested if he's still playing.

I would, but only if nobody else stood up... And it looks like Donsig and Nobody have show interest

 

[Curufinwe]

However, George, intent behind legislation has nothing to do with theinterpretation, so while illuminating it is not necessarily relevant. Again, though, that can be decided by the JR.

 

[Nobody]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCLG100
well i said i had only been browsing, so out of interest who are these people that have come forward and asked to do it, black_hole might be interested if he's still playing.
I would, but only if nobody else stood up... And it looks like Donsig and Nobody have show interest



Although iv been dieing you run against blackhole for ages

 

[Black_Hole]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCLG100
well i said i had only been browsing, so out of interest who are these people that have come forward and asked to do it, black_hole might be interested if he's still playing.
I would, but only if nobody else stood up... And it looks like Donsig and Nobody have show interest



Although iv been dieing you run against blackhole for ages

its an appointment anyway; I was actually planning on running for the judiciary but I was gone during nominations

 

[Black_Hole]

However, George, intent behind legislation has nothing to do with theinterpretation, so while illuminating it is not necessarily relevant. Again, though, that can be decided by the JR.

Actually people have different views on this, however I agree with you, when I rule on JRs the intent means nothing to me, just what is in the law

 

[GeorgeOP]

Yes, I realize my word isn't law. But against the backdrop of not having a JR at this point, I was simply offering the point of view from the person who co-wrote it. It was for informational purposes of understanding the meaning behind the law, not to enforce the law. Sorry to mislead everyone on that.

 

[Curufinwe]

BH: In real world politics I've never heard of the intent of the authors of legislation as having anythign to do with the meaning of the law (this being Canada, btw). In our country we actually have rules saying that doing that is illegal, and that the constitution and the law are to be interpreted keeping in mind that they must evolve along with society, a point of view I must say I most strongly agree with. "Time makes ancient good uncouth", so we must evolve along with it.

 

[Curufinwe]

You know, after some thought, I'd be interested in being CJ, I think it'd be a good way to get started, though I'm quit eunderqualified compared to other people, but I do tend to have different ideas, so might as well put my name in.

 

[Black_Hole]

BH: In real world politics I've never heard of the intent of the authors of legislation as having anythign to do with the meaning of the law (this being Canada, btw). In our country we actually have rules saying that doing that is illegal, and that the constitution and the law are to be interpreted keeping in mind that they must evolve along with society, a point of view I must say I most strongly agree with. "Time makes ancient good uncouth", so we must evolve along with it.

This is usually the biggest debate question, there are many people who want the constitution to be stretchable taking the author's intent into factor, I am strongly against this, but what I am saying is it depends on who is in the judicial office...
But I am also against the second part of what you said, the laws shouldn't evolve... (This is an large issue in America, although the right to abortion isn't in the constituion, people on the supreme court believed the constituition should evolve)

The constitution shouldn't evolve through the courts, if there needs to be a change then let the people amend it

 

[Curufinwe]

I must say that courts must be instruments of social evolution (to use the words of one of our Supreme Court Justices, who I now believe is UN High Commissioner for Human Rights). In Canada the Prime Minister of the day refused to appoint a woman as a Senator in the 1930's because the constitution referred to "he" in the singular and "persons" in the plural, thus implying that women were not persons. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, then the last court of appeal in Canada, ruled that women were persons, because the law of canada must evolve and grow, which was called the "living tree doctrine" and has animated and supported our law since then.

 

[ravensfire]

Generally, the courts at the highest level do take into account the intentions and desires of the law when faced with questions of interpretation. Indeed, many laws have included in them the intent and desire of what that law is to do.

Generally, my view is, and has been, that our Judiciary is there as a last resort. For example, people were wanting a JR to decide how to progress. Sorry, that shouldn't happen. The court should be there to determine if what DID happen, what was actually done, was right or wrong.

The Judiciary should be the last resort for "social change", and be used only when the legislature so overwhelmingly denies reality that the core tenats of a society are at risk.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Curufinwe]

What country is this where the courts take the intent of the authors into account?

 

[ravensfire]

The US. The SC regularly reviews the Congressional record as part of their process.

-- Ravensfire