Term 3 – Nominations for Judge Advocate

Furiey

No Longer Just Lurking
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
6,345
Location
Bedfordshire UK
The Judge Advocate is part of the Judicial Branch along with the Chief Justice and Public Defender, 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 Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution to an accused citizen


Please submit nominations for the Judge Advocate in this thread and Accept or Decline any nominations you may receive. Self nominations are allowed. Citizens may only run for one elected position.

Nominations will close and elections open 00:00 GMT on the 27 September (that’s 8pm EDT 26 September).

Please Note: I shall start closing the nomination threads and posting the polls approx 1½ hours early at 22:30 GMT (6:30 PM EDT), 26 September.
 
I second BlackHole and nominate CivGeneral.
 
I second Black_Hole and nominate mhcarver.
 
Civlord said:
what is a judge advocate :lol:?

Furiey typed this into the first post for a reason...

Furiey said:
The Judge Advocate is part of the Judicial Branch along with the Chief Justice and Public Defender, 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 Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution to an accused citizen
 
I am quite flattered to be nominated for this possition, but I am running in another office and would have to decline. But thanks for nominating me :).
 
I've pasted it into the other two Judiciary nomination threads, and as long as it's in my clipboard I might as well put it here, just incase a rival emerges :p

To candidates:

Do you believe that the principle of 'stare decisis' should be followed in all court rulings by which a civilian brings up a claim that has already been ruled upon? Do you believe all rulings by future courts should hold such precedent? More specifically, if a court issue were to come up that is very similar to a previous case, would you treat the outcome of that case as part of your reason for deciding upon the new case? If so, what factors of the old case would you consider?

- Age of case?
- Change in Fanatikos society since the case?
- Persons on the Judiciary when the prior conclusion was found?
- Personal views on the past case?
- Laws since changed since the past case?
- Others?
 
Gerikes said:
I've pasted it into the other two Judiciary nomination threads, and as long as it's in my clipboard I might as well put it here, just incase a rival emerges :p

To candidates:

Do you believe that the principle of 'stare decisis' should be followed in all court rulings by which a civilian brings up a claim that has already been ruled upon? Do you believe all rulings by future courts should hold such precedent? More specifically, if a court issue were to come up that is very similar to a previous case, would you treat the outcome of that case as part of your reason for deciding upon the new case? If so, what factors of the old case would you consider?

- Age of case?
- Change in Fanatikos society since the case?
- Persons on the Judiciary when the prior conclusion was found?
- Personal views on the past case?
- Laws since changed since the past case?
- Others?
Rarely, it would have to be an exactly identical... Circumstances must always be included in a ruling...
 
Top Bottom