1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Chief Justice confirmation poll

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Demo Game: Polls' started by donsig, Mar 16, 2006.

?

Should Curufinwe's appointment as Chief Justice be confirmed?

Poll closed Mar 20, 2006.
  1. Yes

    18 vote(s)
    66.7%
  2. No

    8 vote(s)
    29.6%
  3. Abstain

    1 vote(s)
    3.7%
  1. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Section 8.C.V.VB of our Code of Laws (CoL) allows a citizen to challenge judicial appointments. Under authority of that section of our CoL I am posting this official and binding confirmation poll.

    in the SoS thread (Then) Secretary of State SoS Chieftess appointed Nobody as Chief Justice while the office of the Presidency was empty due to the run-off election.

    President Chillaxation appointed Curufinwe as Chief Justice in this thread.

    Nobody asked for a Judicial Review (JR) of the appointment in the judicial thread Also in that thread I asked the court to place Nobody's JR at the top of the docket and further asked that Curufinwe recuse himself from the JR to avoid any conflict of interest (if Chieftess's appointment of Nobody was legal then Chillaxation's appointment of Curufinwe is not, hence the conflict of interest). DaveShack, who has experience as Chief Justice volunteered in that thread to be a pro tempore justice if needed. Curufinwe has decided not to grant these requests and intends to rule on the question of Nobody's appoinment.

    At this point he only way to get an impartial judiciary to hear this matter is through this confirmation poll - unless Curufinwe has a change of heart and places Nobody's JR at the top of the docket AND steps aside so an impartial pro tempore justice can help decide that one case. If Curufinwe does that even I will vote to confirm his appointment. If he does not then I urge all citizens to make a stand for an impartial judiciary and vote against his confirmation.

    This is a private poll. No one will be able to see how citizens have voted.

    This poll will be open for 4 days as suggested by our CoL.
     
  2. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    Yes, for one simple reasoning.

    Chillaxation has put Curufinwe in a difficulty poistion, but I trust him to act fairly and efficiently to get what needs to be done, done. Donsig, there is NO legal way to justify Curufinwe's appoint, except through general consensus. Which we seem to already have.

    At this point and time, we should be more worried about getting things done, rather than fighting over who does them. It does not matter, one way or the other, who does them, as it will be the citizens who decide in the end. You don't like the courts interpretion, then pass an amendment and change that law to say what you want it to say.

    Let's just get things done.
     
  3. GenMarshall

    GenMarshall Blood Elven Ghost Agent

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    43,134
    Location:
    New Suramar City, Vekta, United Terran Systems
    I voted yes.
     
  4. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Yes, I agree Curufinwe is in a slightly difficult position. I would not put the blame on Chillaxation because anyone appointed by him as CJ (with the exception of Nobody) would have been in the same spot. I say it is a slight difficulty because all that needs to be done is step aside for one JR. If there is truly a consensus that Curufinwe's appointment (and not Nobody's) was the legal appointment then the appointment would be upheld and Curufinwe could then proceed to handle the remaining business of the court this term. Stepping aside for one JR should not be a big deal especially in a case like this where there is an inherent conflict of interest.

    I don't buy the argument that we should close our eyes to the conflict of interest here just so we can get things done. The mess we've had this term is a direct result of flaws in our Code of Laws. The judiciary cannot fix those flaws, it can only make rulings to interpret what is written in the CoL. No one wants to address the flaws we found (other than you, Strider, who have proposed we through the whole CoL out and replace it with a new one). We do not need a judiciary in place to discuss changes we now know we need to make to the CoL. We do not need a judiciary to draft these changes. We do need a judiciary that will be not only impartial, but free of conflict of interest as well!

    I am with holding my vote for now in the hope that Curufinwe will do the right thing and but Nobody's JR first in the docket and recuse himself from the case.
     
  5. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    Pro-Tem's are appointed by the person who is leaving, and if I may point only in the case of a absence. He's not going to be absent, so he can not appoint a Pro-Tem justice.

    It's not difficult to understand, he can not step down. By our laws, it is impossible to do so.
     
  6. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    The only mention of pro tempore justices is in the judicial procedures. This is not addressed in our constitution or Code of Laws. The judicial procedures speficially state that a justice should recuse him or her self in citizens complaints that directly or indirectly affect the justice. It would not be a difficult matter for the judiciary to change their procedures to allow a justice to recuse him or her slef from any case and appoint a pro tempore justice.

    Since I had to go through the constitution and Code of Laws to see if this was legal I want to quote article F, clause 3 from our constitution:

    The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.
     
  7. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    and I would like to take this time to point out a section of the "quoted" article.

    As I said, this is pointless.

    Also, if I may point out. This whole vacancy situtation shouldn't have been a difficult matter either. Difficulty is assumed by merit of consensus, which we don't have at the moment.
     
  8. Curufinwe

    Curufinwe Socialist Elf

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    926
    I maintain that the outcome of this case does not affect me, as Nobody is not the Chief Justice. The purpose of the case is to determine if he ever was. Since he is not the current Chief Justice, as, if his appointment was legal, he resigned, and if it wasn't then he never was Chief Justice. In each case, their was a vacancy, and, despite your continued opposition, an appointment was made. It is therefore only right for the Judiciary to decide this.

    In regards to the duties of the Judiciary, "fair, impartial, public and speedy", we must remember that all values are relative, and exist in relation to the society in which they exist. To quote this constitution and attempt to claim that you know the meaning is ridiculous, that is the duty of the Judiciary and of the people as a whole, and no one person should attempt to take the place of those same bodies. I hope that I will be confirmed, and may then go on with what is necessary, and am glad to face the people in this way. I hope throughout this that we never forget our higher aims, and never stop acting in solidarity.
     
  9. Nobody

    Nobody Gangster

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    5,454
    Location:
    Wellington New Zealand
    First off lets just make one thing clear. I stood Down from the office. So if i was legally appionted or not i stood down therefore it was Vacant and Curufinwe was appionted.

    I am voting to confirm Curufinwe as well he seems ok.

    Also i would like to thank Donsig, He keeps to the rules and even if it is anoying sometimes it is esential to the nation that we have a person like him keeping us all and checking and balancing the game.
     
  10. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    It is only right for an impartial judiciary to decide the question. You are quite welcome to make the arguments you make but isn't it rather silly that you're making the arguments to yourself rather than to an impartial judiciary?

    I think it is not ony silly but detrimental to our contry. It sets a very bad precedent when we allow a justice to rule on a case that directly affects him. Recusing yourself from one case is not an admission on your part that your publicly stated views on the case are erroneous. It is also not a question of your moral or ethical character. It is merely an acknowledgement that a conflict of interest exists and more importantly of your understanding that since there is a conflict of interest you should not be part of the official body deciding the judical review. Publicly showing that understanding by recusing yourself would show Chillaxation make a good choice in appointing you and I would happily vote for your confirmation and urge others to do so as well. If you do not see the conflict of interest, or worse, choose to ignore it, then I for one do not think you should be chief justice and will vote against your confirmation.
     
  11. Swissempire

    Swissempire Poet Jester

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    5,018
    Location:
    Hamilton College/Florida
    I voted to affirm C-dogg, because as he has ruled, and as Nobody has said, Nobody stepped down so either way Curufinwe is the CJ. I'm glad C-train didn't get cowed by your blatant intimidation tactic

    And the CoL wants a 48 hour poll, so as Censor, I ask that if you truely wish to, you must post a new poll, or this one WILL NOT be valid
     
  12. Black_Hole

    Black_Hole Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,424
    that is a reasonable argument, but not the only reasonable argument, so you shouldn't be ruling on this...
     
  13. Curufinwe

    Curufinwe Socialist Elf

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    926
    Donsig, I don't follow what you mean about making the arguments to myself. When a person makes a decision they do so by discussion and thought, not by talking to some impossibly "impartial" body which mysteriously comes to a perfect ruling. It is by weighing the values, and by listening to what is talked about in the discussion threads.

    I thank all who voted and participated in our democratic process.
     
  14. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Unlike others I actually read our laws before acting:

    Section b.C.V.VB states This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll/

    Section III.A.II.IIC states All official polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days to be binding, however it is recommended that binding polls be open from 3 to 4 days if possible.

    Since the intent is for this to be a binding poll I choose 4 days to avoid problems.

    Looking at the officifal rules posted in the Censor's thread I see that section A.1.C.b states The minimum duration of a poll is 2 days.

    I respectfully point out that 4 days meets this requirement. In addition to reading our constitution and COde of Laws I suggest our Censor read his own posted procedures.
     
  15. Curufinwe

    Curufinwe Socialist Elf

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    926
    And I advise our ever diligent donsig to read the relevant sections of the Code of Laws before attacking others for not doing the same. The most relevant section says that :. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office. This is a private poll, asking the question "Should <citizen name> serve as <office>?", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll should last for 48 hours." Of course it says "should" which leaves all sorts of room to read in the words necessary to clarify it.
     
  16. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Curufinwe, an impartial judiciary is not necessarily one that rendes perfect rulings. This is not about who is best qualified to hand down a perfect ruling. It's about having justices who have no vested intertest in the outcome of the case make the decision. It's not about whether you can or will make the *right* decision. It's about the fact that your position as Chief Justice depends to some degree on the outcome of this JR. I realize you think the JR has no bearing on your status as CJ but it does. I'm not going to lay out all the arguments here. That belongs in the JR discussion thread. And I'm not going to post them there as long as you intend to rule on that JR. If you would just put that case first onthe docket and then step aside I will make my case, it can be ruled on and I will abide by the results as I would expect anyone else to do. I'm not sure how valid my case is but I think it is very important that it be heard as it will establish a legal principle that can be used in subsequent judicial reviews.

    I respect you very much and it pained me to post this comfirmation poll. As I've said many times, I have not yet voted against your confirmation. The fact that you are saying above that you do not follow my reasoning reinforces my respect for you and shows you want to do a good job as Chief Justice. As difficult as that may seem, sometimes doing a good job means stepping back and letting someone else do the job. This is one of those times. Please put Nobody's JR first on the docket and then recuse yourself from the case and allow a pro tempore justice to hear the case. You put up your arguments, I'll put up mine and other citizens will put up theirs. We'll get a ruling and go on from there.
     
  17. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Right. And I've already quoted the relevant sections of our CoL that led me to make it a four day poll. Which has precedence? Prime example of something we need a judicial review on. But first things first. Let's deal with Chieftess's appointment of Nobody. Once again, please put Nobody's judical review first on the docket and the recuse yourself from the case.
     
  18. Curufinwe

    Curufinwe Socialist Elf

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    926
    Please, simply state why you think I'm in a conflict of interest. For the life of me I can not see it, and until I do I will not act accordingly, but the second I know what it is I'm doing wrong, I can correct that (seems like I'm saying that a lot, but oh well, i'm inexperienced).
     
  19. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    There were two appointments made for Chief Justice. We need a judicial review to determine which were valid appointments. It is possible that Nobody's appointment was valid which would make your appointment invalid. How possible is it? Well, we need to have a JR to determine that. You are deciding the case in your favor before it is even heard. That's what you are doing wrong.

    Once again, please place Nobody's judicial review first on the docket and then recuse yourself from the case.
     
  20. Curufinwe

    Curufinwe Socialist Elf

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    926
    He resigned, stood down, whatever terminology you wish to use.
     

Share This Page