Term 2 - Nominations for Public Defender

[Chieftess]

All members of the judiciary share several traditional rights and responsibilities:

Post polls and discussion on interpretations of the Constitution, Code of Laws, and Code of Standards.
Do not have Deputies but may appoint Pro-Tem justicesif they are unable to fulfill their duties. Pro-Tem officials have all of the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for but are a temporary position and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official.
Participate in Judicial Review to determine the legality of proposed amendments, laws and standards.
Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and standards.
Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to dismiss investigations as having "No Merit".
Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review (chief justice only).

Please Accept or Decline any nominations you receive.

 

[Black_Hole]

I nominate Cyc, Donsig, Bill_in_PDX, gert_janl, KCCrusader, and Immortal
Note: I am nominating the above in all judiciary positions, as i do not know which they prefer.

 

[GenMarshall]

I seconded the people listed in BH's post

 

[KCCrusader]

I accept the nominations, and will run only for Public Defender due to new constitutional limits .

 

[Sarevok]

ill support KCCrusader

 

[Chieftess]

I 2nd KKCrusader.

 

[Gregski]

I 3rd KCCrusader.

 

[Cyc]

I will Decline this nomination.

 

[RoboPig]

I back KCCrusader

 

[ravensfire]

To all candidates for Public Defender:

1. Charges have been brought against someone you despise, charges that you consider a slam dunk. How would you conduct yourself in this case?

2. The vast majority of JR's this term passed without any public comments. What do you plan to do bring more citizen participation to these review?

3. Why should I vote for you?

 

[Immortal]

Decline.....

 

[KCCrusader]

To all candidates for Public Defender:

1. Charges have been brought against someone you despise, charges that you consider a slam dunk. How would you conduct yourself in this case?

As of now, I don't know anyone playing this game on a personal enough level to "despise" them. If the case should come up that a person I do "despise" is under charges, I am compeltely capable of conducting an anonymous case. I know that I would technically know who the accused is, but it would be my policy that before ruling to remove all names and/or examples stated in the case, and reread and rule on the case. If I come to the same conclusion, I will give the ruling. If the decisions conflict, I will reexamine both the actual case and an anonymous case of the same type. When I can get both decisons to agree (Through various mental restructuring ), I am ready to make my decisons known.

2. The vast majority of JR's this term passed without any public comments. What do you plan to do bring more citizen participation to these review?

Currently all citizen participation in the Judicial Thread is voluntary. Besides advertising (which seems to undermine the participation), I see no real way to make people participate. If people make their voices heard on the judicial thread before a ruling, it can often offer valuable insight to a decision. Although I encourage everyone to come and speak out, I do not support trying to make people speak. Those that wish to speak out, for or against the court are always welcome how ever.

3. Why should I vote for you?

I have one term under my belt so far, and would consider the judiciary's work successful in the fact that conflicts and reviews were swiftly, yet carefully, completed. I feel that my presense on the second judiciary term will help keep this rhythm the court has acquired, and continue the record of completely exploring all options in a case before ruling.

Thank You
-KCC

 

[Immortal]

kccrusader: I can tell you that this term was a breeze

I hope term 2 goes as well, except for this week.