Term 6 Nominations - Chief Justice

[Sigma]

Term 6 Nominations for Chief Justice

The Chief Justice is a member of the Judiciary. The Judiciary is tasked with upholding, clarifying and reviewing all changes to the Constitution and its supporting laws through Judicial Reviews, upholding the rights of all citizens through Investigations, and carrying out all of these tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.
In addition, the Chief Justice is in responsible for organizing and conducting the affairs of the Judicial Branch.

Please note that you may nominate any number of citizens for this position, including yourself. A nomination must be accepted by the person who was nominated to be considered valid. You may only accept one nomination, but you may change your mind about accepting and declining a nomination as many times as you like up until the deadline. Candidates will be listed in order of their (last) acceptance in the election poll.

Nominations will close on May 27th at 2:00 PM EDT (18:00 UTC).

Should they choose to write them, the candidates' platforms will appear below.

DaveShack's platform:

* Every question will get an answer. There will be no "read the law yourself" answers.
* Every decision will come with an explanation.
* A citizen is not expected to be an expert on the law when coming to the court with a question. Questions, Judicial Review requests, and Citizen Complaints do not have to state the relevant law. The Court will reply back with a clarified version of the question and allow the requestor to verify the clarification is correct.
* If there is an obvious and a non-obvious interpretation of a law, the obvious one will prevail.
* Procedures are guidelines, not straightjackets. The court will make allowances for clicking the wrong box on polls, timing of events being plus or minus a little time, etc.
* Every case will have a deadline. Every ruling will be given prior to the deadline, unless there are circumstances preventing a ruling.
* The court will operate in the open. There will be no delays for consultation in private places, and no collusion among the Justices. The only general exception is if a specific individual is involved, such as in the negotiation of a pre-trial settlement to a CC. Justices retain the same rights to freedom of speech (within rules) as other players, and can communicate among themselves, but not pervasively to the point where a couple of days pass and then a magic ruling comes out.
* The Justices are not the only DemoGame experts. Citizen input is to be solicited, and used as an aid to the Court.
* If the words of a law disagree with the meaning of the law, it is perfectly valid to rule based on the meaning and correct the words.

 

[Black_Hole]

I shall dominate Donsig

 

[robboo]

I nominate DaveShack

 

[donsig]

I shall dominate Donsig

Thank you Black_Hole, but I will decline the nomination since I've decided to run for censor.

I would like to nominate Cyc.

 

[DaveShack]

On second thought, I'll accept.

 

[Cyc]

I self-nominated for PD last Term as we were having trouble finding bodies to fill the ranks. I chose the Judiciary because I truly enjoy serving on the bench. But this Term I have seen a marked difference in the resistance to the Judicial system. Frankly I'm tired of reading slanderous remarks and threats against the jurors. So, thank you, but no thank you. I decline.

 

[BCLG100]

I self-nominated for PD last Term as we were having trouble finding bodies to fill the ranks. I chose the Judiciary because I truly enjoy serving on the bench. But this Term I have seen a marked difference in the resistance to the Judicial system. Frankly I'm tired of reading slanderous remarks and threats against the jurors. So, thank you, but no thank you. I decline.

well ill go nominate you for culture minister again!

 

[DaveShack]

That's disappointing, I was hoping to use an election as a referendum on how the Judiciary should operate.

For the record, my disagreements on recent judicial actions are on the facts, and the process used. It's never about the people with me.

 

[BCLG100]

we can still ask you questions if you want DS.......

to all candidates, how do you think the judiciary should operate???

was that good or you wanting it a different way????

 

[DaveShack]

Here is my platform on how the Judiciary should operate:

• Every question will get an answer. There will be no "read the law yourself" answers.
• Every decision will come with an explanation.
• A citizen is not expected to be an expert on the law when coming to the court with a question. Questions, Judicial Review requests, and Citizen Complaints do not have to state the relevant law. The Court will reply back with a clarified version of the question and allow the requestor to verify the clarification is correct.
• If there is an obvious and a non-obvious interpretation of a law, the obvious one will prevail.
• Procedures are guidelines, not straightjackets. The court will make allowances for clicking the wrong box on polls, timing of events being plus or minus a little time, etc.
• Every case will have a deadline. Every ruling will be given prior to the deadline, unless there are circumstances preventing a ruling.
• The court will operate in the open. There will be no delays for consultation in private places, and no collusion among the Justices. The only general exception is if a specific individual is involved, such as in the negotiation of a pre-trial settlement to a CC. Justices retain the same rights to freedom of speech (within rules) as other players, and can communicate among themselves, but not pervasively to the point where a couple of days pass and then a magic ruling comes out.
• The Justices are not the only DemoGame experts. Citizen input is to be solicited, and used as an aid to the Court.
• If the words of a law disagree with the meaning of the law, it is perfectly valid to rule based on the meaning and correct the words.

 

[Black_Hole]

Your last point troubles me DaveShack, are you saying you will vote on what you think the law should mean and not what the words say?

 

[DaveShack]

Your last point troubles me DaveShack, are you saying you will vote on what you think the law should mean and not what the words say?

No, I'm saying my rulings are based on what the law does mean, which is quite different than what it should mean. Put a different way, if the words of a law confuse its meaning, the meaning is what is correct.

Now you're going to ask, but how do we know what it does mean if the words are confusing? Go back to the 4th point -- an obvious meaning (in the context of the Democracy Game) will be chosen over an obscure, non-obvious meaning. Not the most advantageous for myself or a small group. The most obvious, straightforward meaning according to what the people wanted the law to say.

Taking the famous "72 hour" rule in point, the people wanted newbies and non-officials to get preferential treatment in appointments. Plain and simple, that was the meaning. No obsure "if there's a time listed it must apply to everything". No stretching to find a way to interpret it a different way, just to prove a point.

Take another passage in point, in the Constitution article on decisions. Binding == Official, the definition which has been in use for going on 3 years real time. That's what it means, nothing more nothing less. A poll does not need to be posted by an official to be official. Saying it does is pulling what someone wants out of thin air.

I hope this clears up my meaning.

 

[Sigma]

Congratulations, DaveShack! As the sole candidate for this position, you are automatically elected Chief Justice for Term 6.

 

[donsig]

Congratulations, DaveShack! As the sole candidate for this position, you are automatically elected Chief Justice for Term 6.

I don't think the term elected is appropriate.