Term 1 - Judicial Branch - Conseil Constitutionnel

[ravensfire]

DaveShack,

Your summary is mostly accurate. We found that, absent other laws, Article G did apply in this case. The election was tied and no mechanism existed in law to break it, thus creating a vacant CJ office.

Of course, there was also no mechanism in our law at that point in time for appointments either - what a dilemma!

Unstated in the opinion, but part of my initial brief (and should have been part of the opinion I now believe, but that's my fault) is that the entire election cycle, from start to finish, is one entity. You cannot use laws passed in the middle of that process to control it - you can only use those laws in place at the beginning. Moving targets are bad for this stuff! Thus, even the special election must use only the laws ratified at the time the election process started.

Your lesson learned points are quite accurate - it's unfortunate that it took something like this to reinforce them.

Finally, as I missed it earlier, quoted from the CJ's post of the opinion,

That said, I have decided to post the Majority Opinion for the Associate Justices. As you say, doing so does not imply agreement with the opinion. It is merely a method of ensuring stability in the process of rendering judgement. I still feel unsure about this, as I feel that there is something deeply wrong when one man has to ask another to post his resignation for him. I also kind of get the feeling he is trying to make me look like the bad guy here.

Cyc, the law very specifically requires that the Chief Justice post the opinions. I strongly believe that an immediate request for review/complaint would have been posted if anyone other than you posted the opinion. The majority opinion is based entirely upon my brief, and was written by me. All I asked during that process is that you follow the duties and responsibilities assigned to you. Anyone that asked or implied that the decisions and opinions were anything other than my own would have resulted in an immediate and direct post to the contrary. So no, in no way am I trying to make you, or anyone else, look like the bad guy here. I just want you to follow the process.

-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatica

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
If Peri is appointed to the position of Associate Justice without following the law (CoL H.3.a), then I call for a Citizen Complaint against the President, the Chief Justice, and the two Associate Justices for violation of that law.

It is a easy law to follow folks. Please do so.

Bill is of course correct and after reading this statement from DaveShack:

"Stating that Peri must be appointed to the AJ position is only partially accurate. By the logic of the initial elections being valid, the AJ position was not vacant so it could not have been filled by the special election. This is a compromise position which appears to be motivated by allowing both elections to be valid.

By the current law we'll almost certainly get a refusal poll posted in response to the forced appointment. In effect this will create a 3rd election between Peri and "nobody". If the vote in that poll is a majority for "no", then the President will be free to appoint someone else."
_______________________________________

I was going to quote the law that Bill spoke of verbatim, but Bill had to make me go look it up, just to be sure. Bill is paying attention. So are you Daveshack, and overall I would generally accept your interpretation of this fiasco, because there is no good explanation that covers everything, and we need to move on. But Bill is correct by Law.

Ravensfire's opinion was convienent for us to accept in this time of trouble. It was a gross exaggeration of law to accomplish one thing, a way for Ravensfire to resign from office. He has of course made a mockery of this Judicial Branch to achieve his one personal goals. I have an idea why Bootstoots may have wanted to sign that document as the end result makes the transition into a peaceful Bench more expidient, but certainly not truthful.

Bill and DaveShack, thank you for your opinions. It is an honor to have both of you post in this thread, and I hope you return to post more often, as we need more knowledgable, forthright, and eloquently posted passages here. Bill, I'm not sure how the cards are going to fall on the CoL H.3.a issue, we could just wind up having a Kangaroo Kourt session to get that done in violation of the body of illegal Law that was just created. It seems everytime I try to do something the right way, someone has to tell me I'm wrong. To date, I have yet to be PI'd (or now CC'd), so if that is what must be done to bring this ship to a slow and restful halt, so be it.

 

[DaveShack]

Apologies in advance for quoting a partial sentence, I do not wish to promulgate or argue the part which was edited out.

Originally posted by Cyc

Ravensfire's opinion was convienent for us to accept in this time of trouble. It was ... a way for Ravensfire to resign from office.

Well, in truth anyone *can* resign anytime. If you mean a way to resign while not losing face, then that might be accurate, but we'll only know if Ravensfire chooses to acknowledge this point. In any case, it certainly is a brave position to take.

I had originally considered suggesting that all 3 members of the judiciary recuse themselves from the case over the obvious conflict of interest, but we have no way to deal with having 3 justices pro-tem at the same time, nor is it likely we have 3 other qualified candidates who would not also have a conflict of interest.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire
DaveShack,
Your summary is mostly accurate. We found that, absent other laws, Article G did apply in this case. The election was tied and no mechanism existed in law to break it, thus creating a vacant CJ office.

Of course, there was also no mechanism in our law at that point in time for appointments either - what a dilemma!

-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatica

It is not neccesary to have a mechanism in place. Once it is admitted that the CJ office was vacant due to the tied CJ election then it follows that the office should be filled via an appointment according to our constitution. In the absence of clarifying rules about appointments in the CoL and CoS it would have been appropriate to discuss the matter and form a compromise. What was not appropriate was forming a compromise that not only had no basis from the CoL or CoS but went contrary to the constitution.

I am glad that the majority opinion held that the CJ office was indeed vacant at the start of term one. I am dismayed that the same majority opinion does not have the courage of its own convictions in that it upheld the special election. If the office was indeed truly vacant then only an appointment could fill it.

I applaud ravensfire for resigning and I renew my call to Cyc to do so as well. It is you Mr. Chief Justice who is making a mockery of our judicial system.

 

[ravensfire]

Cyc,

Think as you will, your opinion is as such. My preference was, and still is, to stay on the bench - quite frankly I don't trust you there. However, to uphold the laws as they are written, I must follow them.

Your continual attacks, snide remarks and general attitude of late has all but ruined this game for me. If that was your goal, congrats on a job well done.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by Ravensfire
Your summary is mostly accurate. We found that, absent other laws, Article G did apply in this case. The election was tied and no mechanism existed in law to break it, thus creating a vacant CJ office.

Originally posted by donsig


It is not neccesary to have a mechanism in place. Once it is admitted that the CJ office was vacant due to the tied CJ election then it follows that the office should be filled via an appointment according to our constitution.

[edit - wrong stuff]
Donsig, if you look more closely at the 1st quote, Ravensfire said that article G (with respect to vacancy) did not apply. The office was clearly vacant (having no occupant) but article G does not apply until the election process is complete, which it was not.
/edit]

I misread what Ravensfire said and saw a "not" which wasn't there.

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
If Peri is appointed to the position of Associate Justice without following the law (CoL H.3.a), then I call for a Citizen Complaint against the President, the Chief Justice, and the two Associate Justices for violation of that law.

It is a easy law to follow folks. Please do so.

Here is a solution. I will resign from the game on the condition that RF is automatically re appointed and everyone else agrees to draw a line under this nonsense and move on.
Remember we are playing Civ for fun, we are not supposed to be trying to upset each other.

Edit.
I just want to add that RF resigned because he thinks more of the game and those playing it than he does of his own standing. I hope the citizens see fit to elect RF as Chief Justice next term. Impartiality and a desire to do what is right for the game is more important than any other quality.

 

[zorven]

Peri beat me to it. I would also like to commend Ravensfire for his professional, thoughtful, and selfless conduct. He is the example of what a judicial member should be.

 

[Cyc]

Here's a solution. Why don't all 76 of us resign from the game, one at a time. Wouldn't that be a noble thing to do?

Although Ravensfire has done a lot of work for the game, and I'm glad he dicided to stop lurking and contribute as much as he has, I don't place him on the pedastal that you do. Ravensfire attempts to take things he wants to control behind closed doors. This is evident of the Turn Chats and the Judiciary. Because everything was jam packed into the last few weeks as far as the rulset goes, I let go the Standards governing the Judicial Review. In my opinion, everything should be out in the public eye, so that if the citizens (any citizen) wanted to monitor the goings on of the court they could. Each Justice would publish their own opinion on any issue that came before them. This way all citizens would be able to read how each Justice felt. But now that we've move behind closed doors, we're only required to show you what we must according to law. This is wrong, as is closed door sessions for Turn Chats. Everything must be kept open for inspection by the public as we are public servants, who btw must show the citizens why they should vote for us. Keeping everything secretive and under tight control because of it is not a reason to vote for someone. Ravensfire says that he does not trust me, well I've got news for you ravensfire. I've never trusted anyone who felt they needed to keep things behind closed doors just to keep control. If you are the Leader that Peri believes you to be, why don't you make an effort to put the Judiciary back up on the table where everyone can see it? Why not have the Justices post their own opinions instead of writing their opinions for them? Open and honest is the way this Judicial Branch should be and I intend on making it so. No backroom deals for me.

 

[zorven]

I see nothing wrong with the justices privately writing the majority opinion. I think it allows for a more unrestricted discourse and also serves to give more authority to the publicly posted opinion. The problem with having each justice write an official answer to a Judicial Review is that there are often times no consensus, or worse, conflicting justifications for the same conclusion. Peri, Ravensfire, and myself saw the disorder in DG3 caused by having 3 seperate opinions and thus we developed the system you are using now. I think it is a good system. And if it is good enough for the U.S. Supreme Court, it should be good enough for us.

 

[Cyc]

So when was the last time you voted for a Supreme Court Justice, zorven?

 

[dreiche2]

i think both peri and ravensfire have shown that they deserve a place in the judiciary, both by their understanding of the laws and by their personal attitude, and i find cycs reaction a little bit strange.

after all, peri and ravensfire both declared that they would be willing to pass on the AJs postion, so what more can be expected from them?

and about the law: there were two different elections, one for the CJ and one for the AJs. Latter was completed without complications, so its result shouldnt be negated without further decisions by the people!

in my opinion, the whole branch should be reelected ASAP.

not that it matters, anyway...

 

[ravensfire]

Folks - please.

It's done. A Judicial Review was requested and answered. I ask all parties to respect the results of that review, regardless of their agreement of them, and allow the game to continue.

I sincerely hope this situation does not happen again - we got caught in a morass of our own making.

Please, everyone, let this matter drop - nothing good will come from continuing this.

-- Ravensfire

 

[dreiche2]

ok ravensfire, but it seems to me Peri has still to accept?

and i hope the election mechanism will work next term...

 

[DaveShack]

Peri,

There is no need to do anything that drastic. Your value to the game has been proven over and over.

I half expected you to be selected for VP as the one left without a chair -- not that donsig is a bad choice, but his lack of position was more of his own making.

Besides, the procedure that Bill quoted just says that the president is not responsible for making the appointment. The CJ and remaining AJ must join the committee and do a joint appointment.

[edit] This was originally immediately under Peri's post, until I was distracted for an hour or so... [/edit]

 

[Peri]

I was going to accept. However it seems that as soon as I do a refusal poll will be posted and this whole mess will just go on and on and on. I am not so keen to hold office that I would spoil this game for everyone else. It has been made clear to me that cooperation and harmony is not what many want from this game.
Also these personal attacks are really pissing me off.
I want the old Cyc back who inspired us in DG3.
And finally the reason why me Zorven and RF held meetings in private was to avoid people using our separate statements to perpetuate a conflict. We learnt that if you agree a course of action together and stand united then the people would have confidence in the administration of the rules.
The bench has been made a complete laughing stock this term. Primary school children behave with more maturity than some here.

Edit.
Thank you for your kind words Dave. I dont want to leave the game because I really enjoy it and would really miss it. I just dont want to be used to ruin the game for others. If the CJ says he is happy for me to serve with him then I shall do so and I shall expect the people to support him and bring this matter to a close. However if the CJ does not wish me to serve and a refusal poll is posted perpetuating this saga then I would not want to prolong the agony for Fanatica.

I will leave it to the CJ to decide the resolution to this matter.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Yes. It is not my desire to prolong the pain. Nor is it my desire to see Peri go anywhere.

I am merely trying to prevent us from violating yet another law. Peri's appointment is fine with me if raven is resigning. However, I don't think we should break an easily followed law to get Peri in place.

 

[Cyc]

Please, Peri. The laughing stock is not restricted to the Judicial Branch this game.

 

[dreiche2]

hm, but if peri and ravensfire both agree how it should be handled and then i dont see why there should be a refusal poll.

PDX: i think there is no law broken when the original election for the AJs is declared valid.

also i think about all this like this:
either the appointment of ravensfire (and boot.) as AJs was correct. then their majority report, written by them as legal AJs, should be accepted!
or they were never correctly appointed. but this would lead basically to the same conclusion, namely that peri and boot are the legal AJs! (or a new election should take place...)

 

[FortyJ]

Has anybody seen a turnchat around here? I think we misplaced it somewhere.