1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Term 3 Judiciary

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Demo Game: Government' started by Curufinwe, Mar 14, 2006.

  1. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    OK, since the court has decided to NOT look at Chieftess's appointment first AND since the Chief Justice refuses to recuse himself from that case they only alternative left is to challenge Curufinwe's appointment via a confirmation poll. I come before the court now to formally declare my intention to post a confirmation poll. I respectfully ask the court to refrain from conducting judicial business until such time as the poll is completed.
     
  2. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
  3. Curufinwe

    Curufinwe Socialist Elf

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    926
    Well a delay of nearly 4 days was most definitely not what I had been hoping on, it is, of course, reasonable, in the interests of justice and democracy. I ask my colleagues on the Judiciary to be patient, and to be diligent when the time comes that we must, at last, answer these questions.
     
  4. Swissempire

    Swissempire Poet Jester

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    5,018
    Location:
    Hamilton College/Florida
    Actually your honor, its supposed to be a 48 hour poll, you can still conduct buisness during that time, and i read the 72 hour thing for the first time, and it is refering to appointing citiziens in office. You can appoint any citizien after 72 hours, but any interested citiziens who don't hold an office before then.

    Donsig:thumbdown

    Court back in session :hammer: (note: I don;t have the authority to actually bring the court back to session)
     
  5. Curufinwe

    Curufinwe Socialist Elf

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    926
    I'm inclined to bow before others in the name of maintaining solidarity, so will happily keep court of session until such time as I am confirmed or not as Chief Justice, so as to prevent even more disagreement on my legitimacy.
     
  6. Curufinwe

    Curufinwe Socialist Elf

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    926
    Due to requests, and that it affects my perceived legitimacy as CJ, the case on the legality of a Secretary of State assuming the Presidency and exercising its powers, and on the legality of appointments coming from the same, be placed as first priority, to be dealt with, if I am confirmed, at my confirmation.
     
  7. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Thank you very much. :goodjob:

    however, since the issue of conflict of interest has not changed I respectfully ask the sitting CJ to recuse himself form this judicial review.
     
  8. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Swissempire :thumbdown

    Calling out a citizen for exercising their rights? Ridiculous!

    -- Ravensfire, Public Defender
     
  9. Swissempire

    Swissempire Poet Jester

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    5,018
    Location:
    Hamilton College/Florida
    How was i calling out a citizien for excersising his rights??????? :dubious: NOt sure what you were talking about. All i was doing was pointing out my distaste for Donsig maliciously using extra-legal interperations to cow the citiziens/Cheif Justice.
     
  10. Black_Hole

    Black_Hole Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,424
    he was using a confirmation poll, which is in every citizen's right to do
     
  11. Swissempire

    Swissempire Poet Jester

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    5,018
    Location:
    Hamilton College/Florida
    I agree, but he isn;t posting a confimation poll, and when told that it would be one if he would allow a simnple change to be made, he wouldn't. Also, by saying that if he got his way he would drop it! how is that not an intimidation tactic. He is attempting to strong-arm the entire game so he can get his way. I'm okay with a confirmation poll, a legal citizien complaint, but he has a malicious intent, and thats what the :thumbdown: was for
     
  12. robboo

    robboo Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,123
    Location:
    Cajun Country
    all this arguing might be usless...has the third member of the judiciary even responded?

    Do we even have a full judiciary?
     
  13. Curufinwe

    Curufinwe Socialist Elf

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    926
    Being confirmed, let's get a move on with things. The case I gave highest priority, seeing as it was the only request made, was to deal with the legality of the Secretary of State assuming the power of the Presidency. Second priority is the code of Laws amendment formula, third that of jointly held offices, and lastly (due to the request of Chillaxation) the case on when an appointment ceases being provisional.

    Before I begin though, I would like to hear what other people think of reading in and reading out, and whether or not they are accepted in the DG, because, again, I'm inexperienced and don't want to make a mistake.
     
  14. Swissempire

    Swissempire Poet Jester

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    5,018
    Location:
    Hamilton College/Florida
    It shouldn't matter that your inexperienced. But anywho, since reading in and reading out have never occured in the Civ4 DG, i think it is wise for you to take it into account. What would you read in and read out about. i think it would be on a case by case basis.
     
  15. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    I'd love to help but don't know what you mean by reading in and reading out. ;)

    Also you still need to consider the effect of hearing the first case on the general view of the judiciary as impartial.
     
  16. Curufinwe

    Curufinwe Socialist Elf

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    926
    Yes, I still haven't come to a final decision, but I don't want the whole process to wait up just on me, so until I decide to stand aside or not, I'll continue having things work. Anyways, what reading in is, also called extension, is where you take the text of a law and make it conform to higher law. Take, for example, in Canada where we had a fight over employment insurance, and how the laws were, I believe, sexist. Now, up until then the Supreme Court would strike down laws that were ultra vires, or, beyond the power of Parliament or the Legislative Assemblies to act, in that it would violate the rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the EI legislation violated the guarantee to Equality, the Court felt that the law was unconstitutional. However, leaving a void in the legislation would mean that new legislation would have to be redrafted, repassed, etc. and that the EI program would cease to exist until that happened. This would, of course, not be just. So, the Court decided under the pioneering Chief Justice Antonio Lamer to read in new words to the law to make it conform to the Constitution. The argument relied on s.51 (or 52, something like that) of the Constitution of Canada, where it says that the Constitution is the supreme law. Since all lower laws have to conform to it, the Court was basically cutting out the middle-person and saving Parliament from having to rework the legislation to make it conform, because it was automatically fixed. Reading out is the same thing, also called severance, except instead of adding words you drop off the bad parts. For example, if a law were to say "the retirement age is 65, and 60 for women" the last 4 words would be dropped from the text to make the whole conform to the constitution without getting rid of the entire law on retirement. Basically, it was just a little exercise in easing the work Parliament has to do.

    Since its invention in Canada, it's been adopted by South Africa and Israel, among others. In general it's used by the Courts (in conjunction with the living tree doctrine) to ensure that the laws are just, and to make them that way without having to go back to Parliament.
     
  17. Swissempire

    Swissempire Poet Jester

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    5,018
    Location:
    Hamilton College/Florida
    I see no problem with that if you allow the ability for the citiziens to overrule any case involving Judicial Addition or Severance(sounds better than reading in and out). Also any cases of reading in or out must involve making it fit with the constition
     
  18. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Thanks for the explanation. :D

    The DG has precedent for something similar to "reading out", namely a CoL section can be declared to be in conflict with the Constitution and thus ineffective either for a specific situation or generally. We don't have the equivalent of "reading in" by the court.

    I'll refrain from commenting on the SoS appointment issue for a while to preserve my impartiality in the case, but if you decide to go forward with it yourself please don't close the discussion until I get a chance to weigh in.
     
  19. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    I would like to know when the sitting chief justice will make his decision to recuse himslef from the JR (or JRs) that directly or indirectly cast a shadow of doubt upon the validity of his appointment. I intend to file a citizen complaint against the sitting chief justice IF he decides not to recuse himself from the aforementioned JRs. I do not want to do that anymore than I wanted to post the recent confirmation poll but I will do what I feel is right.

    In the event the sitting chief justice does not recuse himself and said complaint is filed I expect it to be placed on the docket before any other business is conducted (assuming, of course, that said complaint is found to have merit).

    Since the sitting chief justice is still comtemplating what is right and proper to do, I do not yet want to file said complaint - hence my reason for asking for the time frame of an expected decision. If no time frame is given I see no alternative but to file the complaint.
     
  20. Curufinwe

    Curufinwe Socialist Elf

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    926
    Given consideration, I've reached this conclusion.

    The lack of bias on the part of the judiciary, called impartiality, is vital to the judiciary. The main thing judiciary's the world over do is protect equality, to be trusted that the Judiciary will always act in a way which protects the equal and inviolable dignity of all persons, regardless of other matters. This must be protected.

    Now then, the question that inevitably must come up is, how does this effect the current Judiciary. Would any members have any vested interest in the case? In the case we are dealing with, the answer is a most definite no. The reasoning behing it is simple, we start off with nobody's appointment,was he or not? If not, than we are done. If he was, then that appointment needed to end. Now, there are a variety of statements he made which can be interpreted as resigning the post. If his interpretation is to be accepted (and who else would interpret your own words in such a manner) then again, we are done, their was a vacancy. Nobody voluntarily consented to the process of choosing a CJ, and then removed himself for his own reasons. Therefore, he implied again that he wasn't currently CJ, and didn't want to be. If not, then their wasn't, until Nobody definitively said that he resigned (which was after my appointment). Now, we must look at things. Since he has most definitely resigned now, under the line of reasoning that he was still CJ, I could not have filled that vacancy.

    Of course, to do that, you would have to assert that someone other than him would have the right to tell him whether or not he resigned. There is no basis for that, none whatsoever. However, let us, for arguments sake, say that we could tell Nobody whether or not he resigned. Then, because he definitively did in the end, their would be a vacancy. In other words, we'd simply start the process we were at a few days ago, and a new call would be made, and, while I do not claim to speak for Chillaxation, I would presume, given the absence of any change, that he would appoint me again. In other words, the whole exercise would have been a stalling measure, without purpose.

    Therefore, the facts of the case, as DaveShack so eloquently put it, are that the Judiciary is perfectly impartial in this case. I have seen no reasonable argument to say that it isn't. However, as he mentioned, the appearance of the Judiciary must be remembered as well. If the judiciary appears impartial, and this undermines its authority, then that would ruin justice. In this case, I completely agree with DaveShack, and thus should stand aside.

    However, there are other things which should be remembered, as others have continually reminded me. There is a job to be done, and the continuous stalling we say counteracts justice continually ("justice delayed is justice denied") and the judiciary is mandated to act "speedily", an equal value to that of "impartially". So, no matter what, I can be reasonably CCed, for violating some principle. So then, the only way to save this would for my standing aside to threaten the impartiality of the judiciary in some way.

    And it does. If the judiciary can be frightened into doing what a vocal minority wants, then justice will be denied, and this undermines the impartiality by allowing power to taint the bench. That is, if one person can, through intimidation, through fear tactics and the like, influence a decision, then impartiality is destroyed in fact and in appearance.

    Therefore, in a world where there are many values, all relative to one another, I've done what does the least harm. Perhaps little good will come, but I can do no better. I will judge the case, and face the attack that has been promised.
     

Share This Page