Chief Justice confirmation poll

[Black_Hole]

I have seen no reason to view this case as having anything to do with my appointment, no evidence has been given (why, I could even think up arguments that Nobody could still be Chief Justice) and so see no reason to act.

Anyways, since I might as well do this, the main way (and only way I can think of) that nobody would still be chief justice is if his resignation were invalid. That would require that there be an outside authority that could either veto resignations or else a procedure that resignations have to follow. Unable to find any authority which may forbid resignations, or any procedure which would have to be followed, I see no reason why Nobody's resignation would be invalid (since it took place, which some seem ready to ignore). If there are any further arguments I will happily look at them and base my decision to stand aside on that.

If Nobody was still CJ, then you couldn't be appointed since the office wasn't vacant and he didn't resign.

Here is the evidence:
Nobody Appointed by CT

Nobody Withdraws

Notice the last one:

I withdraw my application.

Nobody was withdrawing from the second batch of the CJ appointment...
If his appointment by CT was legal, he is currently the CJ because he never resigned, he just withdrew his application from consideration.

 

[Curufinwe]

Which to him was a resignation as you can seehere

 

[Black_Hole]

Which to him was a resignation as you can seehere

He can interperet how he wants, I can interperet it how i want, the judiciary is the only body that can officially interperet it, and if you are on it, its not impartial.

Also he can't go back and change what he said earlier, he simply said that to get this thing over and pass the law.

 

[Strider]

He can interperet how he wants, I can interperet it how i want, the judiciary is the only body that can officially interperet it, and if you are on it, its not impartial.

Also he can't go back and change what he said earlier, he simply said that to get this thing over and pass the law.

Unluckily, the Judiciary can not interpret his intention. The Judiciary can only interpet the Constitution and Code of Laws.

Like it or not, if Nobody says that was a case of resignation, then we have to accept that he resigned.

 

[Swissempire]

I have already stated the reasons for choosing a four day poll and cited the clause of our CoL that I used when choosing the time frame.

You were then proved wrong, and begged by multiple people to change it.

We can shout CoL clauses back and forth at each other till we are blue in the face and we will get no where. The time frame I choose for this poll is consistent with my belief that we need to give citizens ample time to respond to important issues.

Yet currently, while it may be good, this beleif is extra-legal, so unlees you're in favor of breaking the law when it stands in your way( if you are, glad you didn't get to do anything as CJ), then you MUST change the poll

It is the same belief that led me to fight for the upholding of the 72 hour clause. Behind this strong belief is the even stronger belief that we should adhere to the rules we have agreed on and not ignore them just because we want to press on.

Does that include ingnoring them to get your way?

One of the things we agreed on in the constitution is an impartial judiciary. We should not toss that principle aside and I will not stand by while others attempt to ignore that prinicple.

And i'm sure His Honor will be impartial, since his job, in his opinion, which is the legal opinion, is not in jeopardy. As Strider pointed out, since Nobody says its not his and he resigned etc. etc. etc., we have to take his intrpetation. Unless your only Pro-Citiziens rights when they fit your needs.

I am not the one holding things up. The president held things up by discouraging applicants and thus not giving citizens a full 72 hours to respond to his call. Then, please remember, Chillaxation was sick for a time which also held things up through no fault of his own. Now it is Curufinwe who is holding things up by stubbornly refusing to recuse himself from this case.

LOL, you either are blind to your role in all this, or just really stupid. the 72 hour rule applies if no non-office holding official wants the job, and subsquently an office holdin one does. You often don;t read the hole section when interpeting the CoL or Constituition. And how is it C-Trains fault for not cowing down to your blatant intimidation tatics.

Actually, it is not just Curufinwe but others who would rather close their eyes to the conflict of interest or who would rather avoid any sort of disagreement and who therefore remain silent who are holding things up. I think if a few more citizens publicly admitted they can see the possibility of a conflict of interest here (as Black_Hole and I have done) then Curufinwe would do the right thing and recuse himself. I also want to point out that if he had done this upon being appointed the JR in question would have been settled already.

So now its the citiziens fault because they don;t agree with you???? Also, if you accept the fact that he DOESN"T NEED TO RECUDE HIMSELF, the case could be done. or if you did the poll correctly, then h could get started tommorow.

If you want to close your eyes to this DaveShack that is up to you. I will not. As I already said earlier the next step is to file a citizen complaint against Curufinwe for violating the constitution's call for an impartial judiciary. I will not stand by and watch a Chief Justice rule on the validity of his own appointment.

On what grounds is your citizien complaint?? I see no legal basis for it. I mean, Donsig, i know the law can be a nuisance, but you can;t ignore it all the time!

P.S. maybe you need to open your eyes, or get some glasses so you can read the CoL and Constituition

 

[Nobody]

OK to settle issue if i ever resigned or not here is where i resigned.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3764627&postcount=29

SO no Matter what the outcome of the JR i will not be CJ so Curfuwin will not bedeciding if he will remain CJ so there is NO CONFLICT OF INTREST.

 

[donsig]

On what grounds is your citizien complaint?? I see no legal basis for it. I mean, Donsig, i know the law can be a nuisance, but you can;t ignore it all the time!

I'm sure you see no legal basis for it. I do see a legal basis for it. As citizens we are both free to look at this as we see fit. As citizens our opinions on the matter carry equal weight. Usually not a big hairy deal. When our views disagree and unresolvable conflict arises over whether something is within our laws or not we then go to the judiciary and get an official and binding view of the matter. Since we're vesting our judiciary with the responsibility to make these official and binding decisions we (tried) building certain safeguards into our judicial system through our constitution and code of laws. One of these safeguards is our constitutional guarantee of an impartial judiciary. Whenever the validity of a judicial member's position on the bench is in question that member cannot rule on his own validity without conflict of interest by definition.

OK to settle issue if i ever resigned or not here is where i resigned.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpo...7&postcount=29

SO no Matter what the outcome of the JR i will not be CJ so Curfuwin will not bedeciding if he will remain CJ so there is NO CONFLICT OF INTREST.

An interesting argument. I will happilly present my counter-argument in the proper judicial review thread when we have an impartial judiciary to decide the JR. In the mean time I'd like to point out that all this talk of standing down and resigning in order to avoid issues is not really helping us to move forward. These issues need to be faced and in a proper manner.

 

[Curufinwe]

Donsig, I hate to continue to do this, but could you please just tell us what this argument is? I don't want to make the wrong choice, so could you please simply say what it is so I can make the right one?

 

[robboo]

Here is an idea guys..just wait till the poll is closed. You are going to get confirmed anyway to argue more is fruitless. Swissy...just confirm the poll valid and be done with it. It could be interupted his way also if you go with a "loose" interuption. Let him have his minor "victory".

If after all of this there is still complaints then we need to approach this differently.... close the courts this term and have elections since its almost that time. And let donsig run for CJ since that is what he ultimately wants.

Play by his rules for a while then call a JR about the poll length for future confirmations.

 

[Black_Hole]

OK to settle issue if i ever resigned or not here is where i resigned.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3764627&postcount=29

SO no Matter what the outcome of the JR i will not be CJ so Curfuwin will not bedeciding if he will remain CJ so there is NO CONFLICT OF INTREST.

So you resigned after Curufinwe was appointed, meaning your appointment may still be valid if Chieftess was allowed to appoint you, and you just resigned, meaning we would have to go through another appointment proccess again. Trying to change things now to get this over won't help the way you think it will.
Depending on the outcome of this Judicial Review, Curufinwe may not be the CJ's chair, so he shouldn't rule on this Judicial Review.

 

[Black_Hole]

Unluckily, the Judiciary can not interpret his intention. The Judiciary can only interpet the Constitution and Code of Laws.

Like it or not, if Nobody says that was a case of resignation, then we have to accept that he resigned.

So Nobody is allowed to change the meaning of his posts?

Withdraw: To take back or away; remove.
Resign: To give up (a position, for example), especially by formal notification.

Withdraw doesn't mean resign, and I don't think Nobody should be allowed to go back in time and modify the meaning of his post.

 

[DaveShack]

@ Swiss: Usually laws stating the time a poll must be open are referring to minimum times.

@ Donsig: However, it's also bad form to make a poll longer than it needs to be. Did you really think people would wait several days before voting? I don't think there are enough active citizens who haven't voted to swing this vote.

@ Curufinwe: The objection to you presiding over the 1st JR on whether CT was supposed to be able to appoint a CJ doesn't reflect on the facts of the case. On the facts it could be crystal clear that there is no conflict of interest, but conflict of interest does not derive from the facts. It derives from the appearance that the official's impartiality could be tainted by the question being too close to the official's personal interests. I don't think any of us think your appointment would be overturned, but in the interest of avoiding any more questions on it, please consider allowing a pro-tem to hear that particular case. In fact, a pro-tem could start on the case immediately assuming you and Nobody agree on who the pro-tem would be, because the appointment of the pro-tem wouldn't be called into question either in that case.

 

[Swissempire]

I'm sure you see no legal basis for it. I do see a legal basis for it. As citizens we are both free to look at this as we see fit. As citizens our opinions on the matter carry equal weight. Usually not a big hairy deal. When our views disagree and unresolvable conflict arises over whether something is within our laws or not we then go to the judiciary and get an official and binding view of the matter. Since we're vesting our judiciary with the responsibility to make these official and binding decisions we (tried) building certain safeguards into our judicial system through our constitution and code of laws. One of these safeguards is our constitutional guarantee of an impartial judiciary. Whenever the validity of a judicial member's position on the bench is in question that member cannot rule on his own validity without conflict of interest by definition.

I see what your saying, and while i don't neccarily agree, its your choice to make. FYI, another safguard that is in the same sentence and i think is equally important is a speedy decision/trial/review. IMHO of course.


But Anywho, i declare this confirmation poll closed, Curufinwe the new CJ. Donsig, you may file your complaint, and if you disagree with me, you may post a Recall on me. I;m just doing my job. I reserve the right to exercise Section A article 6 of the Censorial Procedures. That is all.

 

[Pajka]

Donsig, your attitude towards the game has become annoying and I'm affraid that it hurts the interest of other citizens in the DG.
Just stop for a while and think about opinions of the others as well. You seem to me like small child infront of a toy-shop crying "I want that toy!". You don't seem to be able to accept that something doesn't go your way. And you even have troubles accepting that you've made a mistake. In such case most of us just say "Sorry, you are right." and we're happy someone corrected us.

 

[Curufinwe]

Daveshack, that is a very interesting observation, that the image of an impartial judiciary could be damaged by people misinterpreting my actions. If this were to compromise the pursuit of justice, then I would most definitely stand aside. I'll have to think about that.

 

[Nobody]

An interesting argument. I will happilly present my counter-argument in the proper judicial review thread when we have an impartial judiciary to decide the JR. In the mean time I'd like to point out that all this talk of standing down and resigning in order to avoid issues is not really helping us to move forward. These issues need to be faced and in a proper manner.

Donsig howcome when cheiftess appionted me (legal or not) you wouldn't even consider the chance of me recusing myself and having a judical review? Maybe your a hipocrat who just wanted the job of Chief justice yourself, so you thought you could con me out of it, and now that the president appionted someone else you will do anything to see him out of office.

 

[donsig]

Daveshack, that is a very interesting observation, that the image of an impartial judiciary could be damaged by people misinterpreting my actions. If this were to compromise the pursuit of justice, then I would most definitely stand aside. I'll have to think about that.

I eagerly await the results of your thinking since you now have a different point of view to consider. (Though I really don't know what DaveShack said that is different from what I've been saying all along.) If you can now see what is meant by conflict of interest and will recuse yourself from this JR (and let it be decided before proceeding to any other court business) then I will have no reason to file a citizen complaint.

For the record I did not get to vote in this poll. I opened it on the sixteenth as a four day poll. Here it is the eighteeenth and the poll is closed. Since we have been discussing the length of the poll for quite awhile I am sure I did not post this as a two day poll - surely someone would have pointed that out long ago if I had. I would like to know if the poll was close by a moderator and, if so, not only why it was closed but why it was closed without so much as a peep as to why it was closed? I am also wondering why our esteemed Censor has rushed to validate a poll that has been altered?

Anyway, I am still undecided as to how I would have voted in this poll.

@Nobody: I will be glad to answer these questions in the various JR threads once we have an judiciary in place where there is no possible conflict of interest.

 

[robboo]

why the heck did you post a poll if you were undecided...geesh talk about screwing up the term.

Honestly now it does look like you had a case of "sourgrape-itis".

 

[Swissempire]

I eagerly await the results of your thinking since you now have a different point of view to consider. (Though I really don't know what DaveShack said that is different from what I've been saying all along.)

Daveshack didn't try to strong arm Curu into beleiving his opinion. He took a neutral voice and explained why some may beleive there is a Conflict of Interest, not why there is one and if he didn't accept that you thought there was one there would be a CC yada yada yada.

For the record I did not get to vote in this poll. I opened it on the sixteenth as a four day poll. Here it is the eighteeenth and the poll is closed. Since we have been discussing the length of the poll for quite awhile I am sure I did not post this as a two day poll - surely someone would have pointed that out long ago if I had. I would like to know if the poll was close by a moderator and, if so, not only why it was closed but why it was closed without so much as a peep as to why it was closed? I am also wondering why our esteemed Censor has rushed to validate a poll that has been altered?

Anyway, I am still undecided as to how I would have voted in this poll.

I request a Mod close the poll becuase a confimation poll is 48 hours. It was close with a large peep to why. I continually asked(Daveshack too) for you to allow it to be changed. Since you didn't but wanted it to be a confirmation poll, and request it be closed. If you don;t like that i did that, you may attempt to have em impeached, but i stand by my actions. This is all in post #53

 

[Black_Hole]

Daveshack didn't try to strong arm Curu into beleiving his opinion. He took a neutral voice and explained why some may beleive there is a Conflict of Interest, not why there is one and if he didn't accept that you thought there was one there would be a CC yada yada yada.



I request a Mod close the poll becuase a confimation poll is 48 hours. It was close with a large peep to why. I continually asked(Daveshack too) for you to allow it to be changed. Since you didn't but wanted it to be a confirmation poll, and request it be closed. If you don;t like that i did that, you may attempt to have em impeached, but i stand by my actions. This is all in post #53

I'm not sure I understand, but I think what you said is that you told a moderator to close it at the 48 hour mark, is that correct?