Term 1 - Judicial Branch - Conseil Constitutionnel

[dreiche2]

seems like the matter itself is settled now, and, at least in the end, exactly the way i wanted it to, so thats over now.

but still i want to defend my (formerly) position. i think i have the right to say what i think is legal and not. its just my opinion. and after all it agreed with the decision first made in the majority report, so even if its wrong, its for sure not totally stupid.

so i dont know why you, Bill, get mad at me at all. and the example you gave for octivian being appointed by rik for prez is (*in my opinion*) something different, because Peri was elected for AJ (!) in an election which just had been declrade valid in the majority decision, ok?

Originally posted by Cyc
dreiche2 has 25 posts under his belt.

NOW THATS WHAT DECIDES WHETHER IM WRONG OR RIGHT, yes?

*grmpf*


let me get this straight: i dont want to start the discussion all over again (though i still have a different opinion)!

but i just feel a little bit... mistreated... as new citizen...

EDIT: oh, and congrats to Peri, anyhow

 

[Cyc]

@ dreiche2. No, I by no means meant that your postcount has anything to do with your statements being right or wrong. It was more of an attenpt to protect you. I understand you're new to the game and may not understand all the ins and outs. I'm also aware that you're not as familiar with our History like some of us with deity postcounts are. Therefore I was asking Bill to lighten up on you somewhat, as I didn't want him to scare you away. Scaring people away is my job.

Anyway I'm sorry you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm running into the same problem with people that speak English as a first language. Please feel free to post your opinion here anytime.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

dreiche2: I was not mad at you at all, this is a game, nothing here to get mad about.

I was merely arguing against that position, and giving examples of my reasons for it.

 

[TerminalMan90]

As another low post counter, I resented Cyc's post too, but I didn't say anything because I knew that he meant no disrespect.

I have been here since Sept 2003 and my post count is STILL under 300. The reason it is so low is that I like to read as much of the DG forum before I give a reply. I work hard to add new and interesting ideas ( i.e. not just "I agree" posts)

My low count is also a factor of how much time I have to spend on this forum. RL often interferes.

Oops, even though the word count is high in this post, I think it still amounts to

... me too.

P.S., No reply necessary, let this issue also come to an end.

 

[dreiche2]

well, i still dont see were my argument is so faulty that this can only be explainend with my greeness regarding demo games, especially as its is based on ravensfires and bootys argument.

but, Bill, actually i didnt have the feeling you were mad at me till Cyc tried to sort of calm you down, you know ?

and Cyc, i disagree with you in some points, as you can see. but i might well have misunderstood your comment, and as everyone is de-escalating now i will no longer stand in the way of national peace


...for now...

 

[ravensfire]

As everyone seems to be having so much fun ignoring the rules when convienient ...

I am calling for a Judicial Review on the decision to declare the previous Juducial review invalid. There is no law allowing such a decision. As per the Judicial Review laws (under which I am callinf for this review), the decision was rendered legally and accepted as the Majority Opinion. As such, it should be posted as the Judicial Review. No legal right exists to declare a review invalid.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Peri]

Perhaps for the benefit of new viewers Cyc could give us a brief summary of where we stand regarding these recent judicial events?

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by ravensfire
As everyone seems to be having so much fun ignoring the rules when convienient ...

I am calling for a Judicial Review on the decision to declare the previous Juducial review invalid. There is no law allowing such a decision. As per the Judicial Review laws (under which I am callinf for this review), the decision was rendered legally and accepted as the Majority Opinion. As such, it should be posted as the Judicial Review. No legal right exists to declare a review invalid.

-- Ravensfire

Ravensfire, I do see your point and agreed with your review. I think that it should not have been considered invalid. However, DZ posted a moderator ruling that the special election is valid, and as such our review was effectively thrown out the window. However, even though the previous review was invalidated, the effect that the review called for (your resignation and the establishment of Peri on the bench) did occur.

 

[FortyJ]

This entire situation is too comical (in the tragic, ancient greek sense of the word) to even comment on.

Maybe we should not only consider rebooting the game, but also the demogame as well. This is getting embarassing.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by ravensfire
As everyone seems to be having so much fun ignoring the rules when convienient ...

I am calling for a Judicial Review on the decision to declare the previous Juducial review invalid. There is no law allowing such a decision. As per the Judicial Review laws (under which I am callinf for this review), the decision was rendered legally and accepted as the Majority Opinion. As such, it should be posted as the Judicial Review. No legal right exists to declare a review invalid.

-- Ravensfire

So it is your position that the judiciary is not required to follow the laws of this nation? Specifically laws related to replacement of officials who resign?

EDIT: To add that I look back on that and realize it is very rudely worded. Sorry

It is a serious question in that some people believe the courts can make their own rules and laws as they go, and others, like me, believe the court should also follow the law first and foremost. There are many folks in real life courts who follow either of the philosophies, so I wanted to see if where you stood, as it would help me understand your concerns.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by dreiche2
but, Bill, actually i didnt have the feeling you were mad at me till Cyc tried to sort of calm you down, you know ?

Um... yeah, sure...

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by FortyJ
This entire situation is too comical (in the tragic, ancient greek sense of the word) to even comment on.

Maybe we should not only consider rebooting the game, but also the demogame as well. This is getting embarassing.

We are probably still ok until we start getting anecdotes about House of Atreus.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Peri
Perhaps for the benefit of new viewers Cyc could give us a brief summary of where we stand regarding these recent judicial events?

Peri, so as not to get caught up into any kind of sensationalism or media type hype, it may be better for the forums to tell its story rather than the Chief Justice, who has been under a barrage of allegations since taking Office. Under normal circumstances, I would be happy too. But these are dangerous times as I'm sure you're aware. Rather than me giving my personal account of what has happened, I can refer you (and our new viewers) to the Judicial Log as well as this Term1 Judicial thread itself.

If you would like clarification on the status of the Judicial Branch as it currently stands, the only difference between now and its inception is your replacement of ravensfire due to his resignation.

I hope that helps.

 

[Peri]

Thats all I was after. Thanks.
Since it has taken 90+ posts to reach this stage perhaps we can take a break from being contentious and litigious for a few days and just enjoy the game.

 

[TerminalMan90]

Peri, to that end, try reading the CHD threads. It is quite entertaining, if I do say so myself. And not a single mention of the CJ / AJ problems at all.

Perhaps we owe a debt to the Minister of Defense for adding so much spice to the early demogame. Boots said he wanted a challenge

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Peri
Thats all I was after. Thanks.
Since it has taken 90+ posts to reach this stage perhaps we can take a break from being contentious and litigious for a few days and just enjoy the game.

That would be nice, Peri. Now that we have the Game play moving along nicely, concentrting on the more enjoyable aspects of this game are called for. But in light of ravensfire's call for a Judicial Review on a Judicial Review, it appears the Judicial Branch will be taking baby-steps as it moves through the first Term.

 

[Cyc]

The Term 1 Judiciary will accept the request by Ravensfire for a Judicial Review on the decision to declare the previous Judicial Review invalid. He is claiming that this act is in violation of CoS Section X.1

This Judicial Review will specifically address the issue of declaring a Judicial Review invalid in light of CoS Section X.1. No reference to the reasoning involved with the Opinions of DGIVJR1 will be introduced into this Judicial Review, as this is not pertinent to the subject matter.

Also, because Associate Justice Bootstoots has once again involved himself in an open format discussion with a person requesting a Judicial Review before a Citizen’s Discussion thread has been opened, this court disqualifies Associate Justice Bootstoots from participating in this Judicial Review. He may, in accordance with CoL E.2.A, appoint a Pro-Tem to cover his responsibilities in this Judicial Review. The requester of this Judicial Review, Ravensfire, is not eligible for this Pro Tem appointment.

I will now post acceptance of this Judicial Review request in the second post of this thread. A citizen’s Discussion thread will be opened shortly.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
Also, because Associate Justice Bootstoots has once again involved himself in an open format discussion with a person requesting a Judicial Review before a Citizen’s Discussion thread has been opened, this court disqualifies Associate Justice Bootstoots from participating in this Judicial Review.

Talk about the judiciary making things up as they go! There are no legal grounds that I know of for disqualifying a justice from a judicial review. If bootstoots has violated the law then I think a citizen complaint is in order to investigate the matter and hand out punishment if need be.

I also would like to know how our first judicial review got overturned or nullified. I don't recall any judicial procedure that did so. Please enlighten me on mighty chief justice!

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by donsig


Talk about the judiciary making things up as they go! There are no legal grounds that I know of for disqualifying a justice from a judicial review. If bootstoots has violated the law then I think a citizen complaint is in order to investigate the matter and hand out punishment if need be.

donsig, Bootstoots has endangered the Judicial Review process twice in the last 3 JR's. I warned him the first time he had an open discussion with you when you filed your request for a JR. This is evidenced by his removal of the post containing the conversation with you on the first page of this thread. Now he has completely disregarded my warning and has struck up an open conversation with the person who not only requested the JR, but who wrote the Opinion to which he accepted as his own for the Judicial Review in question. He also stated in this open conversation that he agreed with the requester. There is no way for me to go other than disqualifying Bootstoots. In accordance to Article F of the Constitution, the Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch. This is what I deem to be the practical course of action in light of Bootstoots disregard for Judicial Procedure.

I also would like to know how our first judicial review got overturned or nullified. I don't recall any judicial procedure that did so. Please enlighten me on mighty chief justice!

I would like you to know these things also donsig. That's why I have posted in these forums and in the Judicial Log the appropriate wording. Please feel free to review them.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by donsig


Please enlighten me on mighty chief justice!

Also donsig, please. If you can't keep a civil tongue in your head, express your opinions elsewhere, OK?