Term 2-Nominations for Chief Justice of the Court

[RoboPig]

The Chief Justice is the head of the Judicial Branch, and 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.

If nominated, please accept or decline
You may nominate yourself
Nominations shall close at 4:00 PM GMT on Jan. 27th

 

[Sigma]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Judiciary is not affected by term limits.

Per our Code of Laws:

I. Holder of Triumvirate and Cabinet offices are affected by term limits.

 

[Blkbird]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Judiciary is not affected by term limits.

What the CoL says is that anyone can hold a Judiciary position for an unlimited number of times consecutively - if he is elected to that position every time. Not being effected by term *limits* doesn't mean not being effected by *terms* themselves.

 

[Sigma]

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Blkbird]

I dominate donsig for Chef Justice of the Court.

 

[DaveShack]

I dominate donsig for Chef Justice of the Court.

I can't comment on donsig's culinary talents, but can recommend him as Chief Justice.

 

[ravensfire]

Go donsig!

-- Ravensfire

 

[Swissempire]

I nominate Octavian X, but also support Donsig!

 

[IamSid]

I nominate Vander! My fellow Idiot!

 

[Black_Hole]

I'll nominate myself and in an unexpected move accept

 

[Swissempire]

Blackhole, i was about to nom you for PD!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Now the evils of Ravensfire will go uncontested, letting him loose again on the innocents of our sweet sweet nation



P.S. Black Hole, you should really run for PD!

 

[Black_Hole]

Blackhole, i was about to nom you for PD!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Now the evils of Ravensfire will go uncontested, letting him loose again on the innocents of our sweet sweet nation



P.S. Black Hole, you should really run for PD!

Unless the CJ race has another 2 candidates, I will stay here.

 

[donsig]

Thanks for the nomination Blkbird! (And thanks also to DaveShack, ravensfire and Swissempire!)

Let's see now, if I vote for myself, too, that's maybe five votes already.

I'll accept the nomination!

 

[Tubby Rower]

Thanks for the nomination Blkbird! (And thanks also to DaveShack, ravensfire and Swissempire!)

Let's see now, if I vote for myself, too, that's maybe five votes already.

After this quote, I'm sure that swissempire's vote is in the bag

I nominate Octavian X, but also support Donsig!

why would you nominate someone and then support someone else is swiss trying to lure competition away from his censor campaign?

 

[Swissempire]

No, i'm just commenting that they would both make good justices. I was not saying i would vote for donsig, i want to see how the elction plays out. I think they both have very different styles.

Tubby, you might be on to something. If i nominate everyone for cheif justice, then all the other positions will be vacant, and i will have ULTIMATE POWER!!! *lighting from fingers*



P.S. I'm leaning towards OCto

 

[Vander]

I nominate Vander! My fellow Idiot!

I accept! I will say it here: As CJ, I will strive to be the worst idiot i can be.

 

[Octavian X]

Thanks for the nomination, Swissempire, but I'll decline. The last time I was Chief Justice (DG2 Term 1, IIRC) I was almost driven insane.

 

[Whomp]

I accept! I will say it here: As CJ, I will strive to be the worst idiot i can be.

With a law degree to boot.

 

[ravensfire]

Nice little race here.

Questions -

1) Can you give a general statement about the procedures you plan to use?

2) Let's say a citizen poll over a decision quickly entered into heated discussion about procedural matters. The Censor has not weighed into the debate yet. A citizen involved requests a JR for the court to "determine the type and validity" of the poll. what would you do?

3) Where does the concept of "fun" enter into your rulings?

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire

 

[Vander]

1.) I plan to follow the so called "Western" method for coming to a decision that us North Americans and Europeans are used to. Specifically, I will hear arguments for and against the point of contention. Then, confer with the other judiciary members if necessary, otherwise, continue on with looking over the Code of Laws and the Constitution one last time before announcing my decision.
Above all, I will act as the Supreme Court of the United States does: Rule on disputes as they pertain to our Laws and rules we have set out. It is not my position to create any sort of new guideline. Rather, to decide the constitutionality of something that comes before me.

2.) Again, I will look over our Constitution and Code of Laws. In this situation, I will do as follows:
- The constitution states that any citizen has the "Right to Assemble, Vote, Free Speech, and Representation." (Article B, section 2, subsections a,b,d,h) Thus, any citizen can create a poll, in so much as it acts as in regard with the prestated rights.
- Article C, section 1, subsection 2 states in what ways the will of the people will be manifested through our elected officals. Of these methods, various polls are included. Now, depending on the office of the citizen who created it and the scope of the poll, the level to which it will apply will be determined (Be it simple opinion, referendum, or initiative). This would be the only role of the Judicary in this scenario: To confirm to which catagory the poll in question belongs.

3.) 'Fun' is something that is tricky to have in judical affairs. Yes, we are human and thus enjoy having fun. However, the nature of the judicary is that of a inherently neutral body. It is necessary for the judiciary to be as independant as possible from any one side. In other words: No fun is to be had with the business of the judicary. Now what happens behind the closed doors is another matter .