Wittenberg

Xheneral/General => Wittenberg => Topic started by: Viteu on February 27, 2020, 05:32:18 AM

Title: Judicial Reform of 2020
Post by: Viteu on February 27, 2020, 05:32:18 AM
All,

I've finished up the Judiciary Amendment of 2020.  Please see the FIRST post at https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=98.msg543#msg543.  Apparently there is 20k character limit on new Witt, so I removed the prior version with strikethrough and posted it below for posterity.

In any event, changes are as follows:

Next, I included an accompanying statute that would only come into effect if the amendment is implemented.

As many of you know, it's an open question how much time I have left in the Senate (or if I'm not going anywhere at all!), so i intend to Clark this for March, even if the Fates determine that I cannot vote for it in March.  If, however, I am appointed, I will need to resign and adhere to my commitment to retire from public/political life.  I do hope, in that event, to see this adopted and ratified.
Title: Re: Judicial Reform of 2020
Post by: Viteu on February 27, 2020, 05:45:05 AM
I should note that I included language that the Scribe can make edits for accents and other marks, typos, and to fix subsections for consistency issues.
Title: Re: Judicial Reform of 2020
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 27, 2020, 08:13:11 PM
Quote from: Viteu on February 27, 2020, 05:32:18 AM
The statute abolishes, in its entirety, the Justice of the Peace, which is a decent idea but I think maybe some of us would prefer to avoid

Yeah, I refer my learned colleague to the dictum in Hall v. Oates (1981), viz. "I can't go for that." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccenFp_3kq8)

I honestly don't think we need any fulltime judges on a lower court. I prefer "citizen justices", who can become qualified by sitting an exam, with appeal to the UC. As we've found, declaring someone a fulltime judge is the best way to make them inactive.
Title: Re: Judicial Reform of 2020
Post by: Viteu on February 28, 2020, 06:56:19 AM
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on February 27, 2020, 08:13:11 PM
Quote from: Viteu on February 27, 2020, 05:32:18 AM
The statute abolishes, in its entirety, the Justice of the Peace, which is a decent idea but I think maybe some of us would prefer to avoid

Yeah, I refer my learned colleague to the dictum in Hall v. Oates (1981), viz. "I can't go for that." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccenFp_3kq8)

I honestly don't think we need any fulltime judges on a lower court. I prefer "citizen justices", who can become qualified by sitting an exam, with appeal to the UC. As we've found, declaring someone a fulltime judge is the best way to make them inactive.

I would respectfully point the Seneschal to a recent case where a single errant judge, acting much as a Justice of the Peace would, let Guy Incognito trash our legal system in such a way an appellate UC felt he could not remedy the trash. I also think the Seneschal should start enforcing the 60 day or your out rule. Notably, the statute requires the Clerk to inform the Seneschal when a judge fails to respond so appropriate action, if warranted, can be taken.
Title: Re: Judicial Reform of 2020
Post by: Sir Lüc on February 28, 2020, 07:45:12 AM
I would strongly caution against Clarking a bill that has been so substantively changed two days before the Clark is set to begin. While there's a good chance you will be on the UC from tomorrow onwards,

Now, to my objections. I frankly don't see the problem with calling UC judges "Justices". It's a Talossan tradition that goes back from the creation of the UC in the late 1980s and has never caused any confusion. "Judges" were the Mags, when that still existed - it matched the US (federal) style and just made sense.

I don't really get the expansion of Puisne Justices. Aren't there already four PJs + one SJ according to the 2017 OrgLaw?

Finally, I need a clarification of the proposed GC. Is it basically the old MC, but with UC justices serving as judges of first instance? Also, maybe this can be combined with the JP idea, where we still have JPs that can serve on the GC. I guess that if we had any JPs at all, we could have seen how well the system worked.
Title: Re: Judicial Reform of 2020
Post by: Viteu on February 28, 2020, 01:34:07 PM
Quote from: Lüc on February 28, 2020, 07:45:12 AM
I would strongly caution against Clarking a bill that has been so substantively changed two days before the Clark is set to begin. While there's a good chance you will be on the UC from tomorrow onwards,

Now, to my objections. I frankly don't see the problem with calling UC judges "Justices". It's a Talossan tradition that goes back from the creation of the UC in the late 1980s and has never caused any confusion. "Judges" were the Mags, when that still existed - it matched the US (federal) style and just made sense.

I don't really get the expansion of Puisne Justices. Aren't there already four PJs + one SJ according to the 2017 OrgLaw?

Finally, I need a clarification of the proposed GC. Is it basically the old MC, but with UC justices serving as judges of first instance? Also, maybe this can be combined with the JP idea, where we still have JPs that can serve on the GC. I guess that if we had any JPs at all, we could have seen how well the system worked.

I'll defer to the Seneschal about splitting the bill.

To the use of Justices--for the most part, I prefer to refer to them as Justices.  But there seems to be a dissonance in recognizing that Justices and Judges are, for the most part, interchangeably used, and that they are mere titles. I am, of course, responding to a certain theory advanced by a sitting Justice at the moment.

For clarification on the US system, the Supreme Court has Justices, the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts have Judges. District Courts also have Magistrate Judges. The responsibilities of a Magistrate Judge varies based on district court, with some handling everything up to trial, and others handling only what the District Judge needs them to. In any event, I would be fine with using Justice for the UC, Judge when a Justice sits as a nisi prius Judge, and Magistrate in lieu of Justice of the Peace.

A compromise between my and Meistra's positions could be to retain the Justice of the Peace as a Magistrate, but allow a UC Justice to sit as  Judge if a Justice of the Peace is unavailable.
Title: Re: Judicial Reform of 2020
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 28, 2020, 02:02:43 PM
Quote from: Lüc on February 28, 2020, 07:45:12 AM
I would strongly caution against Clarking a bill that has been so substantively changed two days before the Clark is set to begin.

I honestly think the whole thing could stand another month of discussion and I would urge it not to be Clarked this time. If V is on the Cort he can continue to help with discussion in the Hopper.

QuoteNow, to my objections. I frankly don't see the problem with calling UC judges "Justices".

As far as I can tell, V thinks that that title gives judges "delusions of grandeur" that they are entitled to ignore the law if they personally consider it contrary to "justice" as seen in re: "Sebastian Panache".
Title: Re: Judicial Reform of 2020
Post by: Viteu on February 28, 2020, 04:11:47 PM
Okay, I won't Clark it then.

I forgot to address the "increase to two" question. The amendment reduces the number of Js to one Senior and two Puisne.

For flexibility, the number can be increased to nine, but for clarity with titles, the actual wording is that there shall only be one Senior but the Ziu can increase the number of PJ to 8, only in even intervals to keep an odd number of overall J's.

So why have the statute? Well, if we're reducing to three, but we have five sitting, and for the ability for a GC to work, I figured keep all five and just increase the number now. If, say in two years, we find we have a significant number of active citizens and don't want UC Js to sit as a trial judge, we can reduce the number and update the lower cort by statute.

My overall goal here is to maximize flexibility for growth, so we don't need to reform the UC a third time in ten years.
Title: Re: Judicial Reform of 2020
Post by: Sir Lüc on February 28, 2020, 04:26:51 PM
Ah, I'm stupid. I kept referencing the original VIII.1 in the 2017 OrgLaw, instead of the proposed VIII.3 in your bill, so I was convinced the math yielded 7 Justices. For the record, I agree with your rationale 100%.