Term 1 - Nominations for Chief Justice

[Cyc]

Please post below your nomination for the Chief Justice. You may nominate any registered C3C DemoGame Rivival Citizen (see Citizen Registry above). If you are registered, you may also nominate yourself for a position. Self-nomination is permitted.

This is a discussion thread, so please feel free to second a nomination or ask the candidates questions. All debates will take place in these Nomination threads.

Office description:
The Chief Justice is part of the Judicial Branch along with the Public Defender and Judge Advocate, and is tasked with upholding, clarifying and reviewing all changes to the Constitution and its supporting laws through Judicial Reviews, and upholding the rights of all citizens through Investigations. The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.

The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.

 

[Cyc]

I will nominate Black Hole as Chief Justice.

 

[Nobody]

i nominte donsig

 

[Chieftess]

I nominate donsig, too.

 

[donsig]

Thanks Nobody and Chieftess but I've been away from the DGs too long to know the rules anymore so I'll decline this nomination.

 

[Cyc]

I will nominate Lord Civius for Chief Justice.

 

[Lord Civius]

Thank you Cyc for nominating me to the Office of the Chief Justice. I would be honored to serve the citizens and uphold our Constitution.

 

[Black_Hole]

As Black_Hole walked toward a small gathering of the nomads he noticed some man talking about the election of government offices. "An elected government?" thought, Black_Hole, "what a novel idea". Black_Hole asked the man what names were on the list. The man took a moment to respond, "Unfortunately since we cannot record these names anywhere I have had to memorize them all", he paused for another moment and began reciting the names. Black_Hole was shocked when he heard his name connected with "Chief Justice". He had not lived in this lightly populated area for long, yet the citizens of this area must have thought he would be a good fit, for they knew of his superb logic skills.

Black_Hole paused to think for a moment and then told the old man standing there that he accepted the nomination. "What next?" thought Black_Hole. "Perhaps I should try going around to the different people and solicit questions from them, then they would believe in my sound reasoning and logic." And so Black_Hole began going from hut to hut, "campaigning" for Chief Justice.

I accept this nomination, are there any campaign questions for Lord Civius and I?

 

[Cyc]

Here's an old question to warm you up to a debate -

Explain to us the difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "innocent unless proven guilty". You can make the answer as long as you'd like and use as many RL parallels as you see fit.

I'll have a difficult question later.

 

[Black_Hole]

Here's an old question to warm you up to a debate -

Explain to us the difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "innocent unless proven guilty". You can make the answer as long as you'd like and use as many RL parallels as you see fit.

I'll have a difficult question later.

This wording of this question seems very familiar
Well in real life these are commonly used interchangeably but there is a significant linguistic difference. Obviously the only word that is different is "until" vs "unless". Going off a straight English meaning, the difference between these two statements is that "innocent until proven guilty" makes the assumption that it is only a matter of time until guilt is proven. "Innocent unless proven guilty" makes the inference that they may not be proven guilty.

It is interesting to note that our current constitution and code of laws do not define this right. (Citizens do have the right to a fair trial), so as Chief Justice I will ensure that the judicial procedures codify this right.

Well now that I have a little time, I'll post my platform.

Black_Hole's Platform

• Won't legislate from the bench. - I believe in following a strict interpretation of the law.
• Experience - I have countless terms of experience on the bench from previous demogames as all three justices. I have served as both prosecutor and defendant in citizen's complaints. I have made several mistakes in the judiciary but with my experience I won't repeat them.
• I believe the judiciary is a big check on the executive and legislative branches, which means hopefully the judiciary won't have to be used, but when people start overstepping their bounds they should be reeled in.
• I believe the most important trait the Chief Justice should have is impartiality. In the heat of a citizen's complaint the judge advocate and public defender may be pushing their side too aggressively, and a third party is needed to moderate the debate.
• The judiciary as a whole is required to make sure that all citizens have their rights protected, which can be tricky when we have the right to request investigations and the right to a fair trial.
• In my judicial procedures I will give any citizen the right to request that a judicial review have a separate discussion thread.
• In my judicial procedures I will codify the right to innocence unless proven guilty.

 

[Nobody]

If donsig isn't running for a judicial office i would expect a busy term for you.

 

[Cyc]

Interesting answer, Black_Hole. Different from the last time you answered that question, you went just a little deeper this time. Let's see what Lord Civius says.

Purdy funny, Nobody. We could see a lot of action.

 

[donsig]

If donsig isn't running for a judicial office i would expect a busy term for you.

Another citizen with a long memory.

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

I vote for Lord Civius

 

[Lord Civius]

Explain to us the difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "innocent unless proven guilty". You can make the answer as long as you'd like and use as many RL parallels as you see fit.

I see little difference in the two statements above. One could come to the assumption that the first hints at a presumption of guilt, though they would be wrong. It should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, both statements presume innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until or unless they are proven otherwise.

My platform will be up today.

 

[Cyc]

Again, interesting. Thank both of you for answering that one. One of my favorites.

Next question -
Can you give us an idea of how your court will be run in our first Term? Will your Court Procedures allow for a lenient court, ruling from the bench and not the book? Or will it be more of a Constitutional Court walking the line and never straying from the literal interpretation of the Constitution and Code of Laws?

 

[Black_Hole]

Can you give us an idea of how your court will be run in our first Term? Will your Court Procedures allow for a lenient court, ruling from the bench and not the book? Or will it be more of a Constitutional Court walking the line and never straying from the literal interpretation of the Constitution and Code of Laws?

In the sense of interpretation I will run the court straightly, as I believe you shouldn't stray from the literal interpretation of the Constitution. My basic reasoning is what the constitution actually says and not what somebody wants it to say. There is a good chance that a problem is found in the constitution that goes against a clear majority's wishes, however this is what the amendment process is for. If citizens do not agree with the literal interpretation they can change the wording.

However in terms of procedures, I want to be flexible. For example, I will default by having judicial review discussions be in the court's thread, however should any citizen (most likely the person calling for review) wish, I will create a discussion thread in the citizen's forum. I will also use the judicial procedures to codify citizens' rights that pertain to judicial proceedings.

 

[Lord Civius]

Again, interesting. Thank both of you for answering that one. One of my favorites.

Next question -
Can you give us an idea of how your court will be run in our first Term? Will your Court Procedures allow for a lenient court, ruling from the bench and not the book? Or will it be more of a Constitutional Court walking the line and never straying from the literal interpretation of the Constitution and Code of Laws?

Simply put it is not the Judiciarys' responsibility to set policy or write laws. If the Constitution is not followed literally then the Justices become law-makers and policy setters. My court will interpret the Constitution literally and leave the policy-making to the Assembly. That being said the first term will set presedent on a host of issues. A fair yet firm court will be necessary to see the Constitution is perfected in the Assemby and not in the Judiciary.

 

[Cyc]

Both good answers. Remind's me of the way donsig used to run his Court.

Ok, let the voting begin. These nomination threads can stay open until the end of the election cycle, in case more debates take place. You may also post in the Election Polls.