Judicial Review Discussion Thread- Provisional Appointments and Time Limits
- Thread starter Curufinwe
- Start date
donsig
Low level intermediary
Swissempire
Poet Jester
The definiton for Provisional is serving for the time being This is take from merriam webster. According to the word, Cheiftess appoint would have been legal(Note: moot now, he stepped down, so You Honor is CJ), and according to the word, you may conduct buisness durin the confimation poll.
My views on the poll are clear
My views on the poll are clear
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
There may be a valid JR in here, I'm just not sure what the question for the Judiciary to consider is. Please rephrase this question.Curufinwe said:
Some suggestion on that:
-- When does an appointed citizen assume the powers of the office? Immediately, or after the time for a Confirmation poll (regardless of type) passes?
-- If the answer above is immediately, what affect would a confirmation poll have on that assumption of powers?
There may be others, these are questions asked and answered in a previous DG's review of a similar question.
This is NOT a matter for a Judicial Review. This is a matter for the amendment process. The Judiciary is here to clarify existing law, not to create new law.
-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Curufinwe said:
The Judiciary should be around soley to clarify questions of law, resolve conflicts of law, review proposed law and conduct investigations of misconduct.
The Judiciary will often find "bad" laws, ones that aren't clear or can cause problems, during this process. The most that should be done in these cases is to comment on potential problems and issues. The Judiciary, in an official act, should not and cannot rewrite or change those laws.
An appropriate action would be to note the flaws, and then as a citizen create an amendment thread to determine specific ways to correct those flaws.
-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
Swissempire
Poet Jester
What definition of Provisional will you be using?
I agree Ravensfire, but I don't see what this has to do with the judicial techniques of "reading in" and "reading out" words in laws. Again, these are (at least in Canada and South Africa, not sure about the rest of the world) widely accepted judicial means to bring the law into a correct interpretation. I believe it first gained substantial use in Canada over an employment insurance dispute, and the Court felt that getting rid of the law on EI wouldn't be just, so simply read in new words to the law to make it correct and constitutional. South Africa recently did that in order to legalise same-sex marriage, where the Constitutional Court ruled that if Parliament didn't legalise same-sex marriage in a year the Court would simply read in new words to the law to that effect. I assumed that it was a normal and widely accepted technique the world round, but perhaps I am wrong.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
One, that's beyond the powers granted to the Judiciary.
Two, it's not a power the Judiciary needs. All of us are citizens, members of the Assembly, and can propose amendments and laws as we deem needed. Circumventing that process through abuse of Judicial power strikes the very heart of democracy.
The Judiciary is there as a referee - we enforce the rules, we interpret the rules. We cannot, acting as the ref, create new rules. That's the duty of all citizens.
-- Ravensfire
Two, it's not a power the Judiciary needs. All of us are citizens, members of the Assembly, and can propose amendments and laws as we deem needed. Circumventing that process through abuse of Judicial power strikes the very heart of democracy.
The Judiciary is there as a referee - we enforce the rules, we interpret the rules. We cannot, acting as the ref, create new rules. That's the duty of all citizens.
-- Ravensfire
The power of "reading in", also called extension, and that of "reading out" also called severance, were never intended to create new rules, which they do not. In general, what they are is a way of correcting lower laws (sub-constitutional) to higher ones (The Constitution) to make the sure that the former are consistent with the contemporary meaning of the latter. If, however, this isn't a judicial technique that the DG uses, then I see no reason why I should, I simply wasn't familiar with judiciary's that didn't use it.
Swissempire
Poet Jester
hmm... i wonderSwissempire said:
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Fellow citizens, as we are waiting breathlessly for the current CC to complete, do you have anything further to say on this JR?
-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
Chillaxation
Warlord
I honestly think that we just need to select an hour figure from among the number of figures given, and define it as the period during which a confimation poll must be introduced.
donsig
Low level intermediary
ravensfire said:
I have withheld my comments on all JRs until the issue of who will preside over them is settled. I really do not think it would be fair to expect these discussions to proceed while that issue is still undecided.
Swissempire
Poet Jester
Why would that change your opinion?donsig said:
The intended time limit on confirmation polls of 48 hours was left out, leaving us with a situation where technically there is no limit on a confirmation
If a time limit on confirmation polls was discussed in the amendment proposal thread but not included in the proposal which was voted on, then I think it is a "clerical error" and can be corrected by the "minor error correction process." That is, unless there was significant disagreement during the discussion over how long the time limit should be. Even if there was no discussion, the "usual and prevailing time" from previous DGs could be enacted by using such a law as precedent.
If a time limit on confirmation polls was discussed in the amendment proposal thread but not included in the proposal which was voted on, then I think it is a "clerical error" and can be corrected by the "minor error correction process." That is, unless there was significant disagreement during the discussion over how long the time limit should be. Even if there was no discussion, the "usual and prevailing time" from previous DGs could be enacted by using such a law as precedent.
