Term 4 ~ Judiciary

[Black_Hole]

I don't think we need to change the pro tem system, the CJ can appoint a replacement and it can get verified by the President... I don't think there are any problems with this

 

[Nobody]

ok i can live with that. So if there are no changes? I agree to procedures

 

[Black_Hole]

ok i can live with that. So if there are no changes? I agree to procedures

no the only change will be this added to the CJ's duties:

Appoint all Pro-Tem justices and seek confirmation by the President

we may change the procedures later this term, but we need to get going

do you still approve?

 

[Nobody]

I concur, do you concur mr donsig

 

[Black_Hole]

I concur, do you concur mr donsig

sorry actually thats not the change, that line above is currently already in the procdures... my bad
I meant this line:

Maintain the Constitution and Code of Laws threads

 

[Nobody]

Its ok i still concur, and do you concur mr Donsig?

 

[Black_Hole]

I agree to the proposed judicial procedures.

Once donsig agrees we can start working on some JRs

 

[Nobody]

I think donsigs going into hiding to Avoid the Celtic Warriors that are hunting him.

 

[donsig]

I think donsigs going into hiding to Avoid the Celtic Warriors that are hunting him.

If only they were Celtic warriors there'd be no problem. Well, I just finished up GOTM 53. Irony of irony, we played the Celts. I had a wonderful time launching my spaceship in 2049 AD. The real funny thing is the Iroquois ended the game with about 600 more points than my Celts. But I still won because I launched my ship.

I don't want to hold up the proceedings but seeing as we're faced with JR's about polls I posted last term (and hence I may be asked to recuse myself) I'm quite interested in how pro tems are to be arranged for. If I'm correct, under the procedures used in previous terms (which we are considering adopting with only a change about maintaining the constitution) then we would pick our own pro tem if we're absent or recuse ourselves from a case. Is my interpretation correct?

 

[Black_Hole]

If only they were Celtic warriors there'd be no problem. Well, I just finished up GOTM 53. Irony of irony, we played the Celts. I had a wonderful time launching my spaceship in 2049 AD. The real funny thing is the Iroquois ended the game with about 600 more points than my Celts. But I still won because I launched my ship.

I don't want to hold up the proceedings but seeing as we're faced with JR's about polls I posted last term (and hence I may be asked to recuse myself) I'm quite interested in how pro tems are to be arranged for. If I'm correct, under the procedures used in previous terms (which we are considering adopting with only a change about maintaining the constitution) then we would pick our own pro tem if we're absent or recuse ourselves from a case. Is my interpretation correct?

according to previous procedures the CJ will appoint a pro tem and he/she will be approved by the president, but I still want your approval of these terms

 

[Nobody]

Come on guys. we were meant to be the speedy effiecent term, and so far with a not being either. Post Post Post Post Post!

 

[Black_Hole]

Come on guys. we were meant to be the speedy effiecent term, and so far with a not being either. Post Post Post Post Post!

We need donsig to accept the procedures

 

[donsig]

Here's the problem. Under CJ responsibility we have the CJ appointing pro tems and the president confirming. Under shared responsibilities we have justices *arranging* for pro tems (whatever *arranging* means). Let's avoid potential haggling over possible conflicts here by coming up with something a little better.

Under these procedures the CJ can appoint his own pro tem but the PD and JA can't. Let's just let each member of the judiciary arrange for their own pro tem and include the checks I suugest in the next paragraph.

I'm not too keen on having the President confirm appointments. We started off last term without a president and that held up the judiciary. If we want confirmation protection let's give the remaining two justices veto power over pro tem appointments and give citizens the option of posting a confirmation poll.

My formal proposal is to strike the bullet under CJ responsibilities that has him appointing all pro tems and change the bullet regarding pro tems under shared responsibilities to:

Appoint a pro tem justice in the event of official absence or recusal from specific CCs or JRs. Either of the remaining two judiciary members can veto this appointment within 72 hours. Citizens can also post a confirmation poll within 72 hours (said confirmation poll to be open 72 hours). In case of a conflict between a judicial veto and a citizen confirmation poll, the citizen confirmation polls takes precedence.

Note: This is in addition to the proposed addition of maintaining the constitution and CoL.

 

[Black_Hole]

Okay, here is the final list of changes to the procedures:

Remove from CJ duties:

Appoint all Pro-Tem justices and seek confirmation by the President

Add to CJ duties:

Maintain the Constitution and Code of Laws threads

Add to all justicies duties:

Appoint a pro tem justice in the event of official absence or recusal from specific CCs or JRs. Either of the remaining two judiciary members can veto this appointment within 72 hours. Citizens can also post a confirmation poll within 72 hours (said confirmation poll to be open 72 hours). In case of a conflict between a judicial veto and a citizen confirmation poll, the citizen confirmation polls takes precedence.

Okay, I approve of these procedures. Nobody and donsig please approve this asap so we can get going.

 

[donsig]

I approve of the procedures posted above.

 

[Nobody]

I approve of the procedures posted above.

 

[Black_Hole]

The judicial procedures have been ratified and this court is now in session.

Please give me a bit to catch up on the JRs submitted

 

[Black_Hole]

I have a question that I wish to submit before the Court for a Judicial Review.

Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?

Thank you,
-- Ravensfire, Censor

I find this judicial review to have no merit, becuase it does not include a law in question.

edit: I decided it no longer has merit, reread above

 

[Black_Hole]

Does Section 8.A.II and Section 8.A.I include appointed no-power duties like Chief Bureau's for the Information Department?



I must ask for the utmost speed in deciding this issue.

I find this Judicial Review to have merit and it will be added to the docket as JR11

 

[ravensfire]

I find this judicial review to have no merit, becuase it does not include a law in question.

edit: I decided it no longer has merit, reread above

Do your procedures require me to state a law?

That kinda goes against making the Judiciary accessable to all citizens.

EDIT: I see it does. That's too bad. I will be editing my JR request, please review it again shortly.

-- Ravensfire