Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 16, 2020, 06:43:50 PMQuote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2020, 03:52:48 PM
Oddly and I'm sure by accident, you cut off the last bit of that sentence.
Nope, did it on purpose, to emphasise that you think Republican views contribute to disqualifying for a UC justice. If you mean that only when in conjunction with "personal animus", then I'll accept that - but then you're opening the door for everyone of professed Republican sympathies to be interrogated (or their Witt posts searched) as to whether they don't like the King personally, while those of Monarchist views (who might have a real problem with the incumbent, who might for example want KR1 back) get away free.
Yes, virulent opposition to one of the institutions of State contributes to a candidate's fitness. To the extent that someone considers the monarchy to be illegitimate and oppressive, as V has stated in the past, that suggests that they will be biased against cases involved the monarchy, which are frequent. The fact that V also has expressed deeply personal animus against HM is an additional factor, as is the likely possibility he will need to recuse himself on such cases.
I mean, honestly, Miestra, sometimes you get these blinders on when it comes to stuff like this. I'm not sure I would call it "partisan," exactly, but you're contorting yourself to ignore really plain facts in order to get at your desired conclusion.
Imagine you had a judge who said that all republicans were an abomination and the Republic should be stricken from memory. No, that's pretty mild. Imagine that you had a judge who said much worse things, and aimed a lot of them at you, personally. They declared you were a cancer on Talossa, etc etc. They said they didn't recognize your authority as Seneschal because you weren't a real Talossan. They said this stuff for years, publicly and repeatedly.
Now, former republicans (and aspiring future ones) constitute an important part of our country. If this judge were going to hear your case, you'd probably request their recusal, right? They're probably going to be biased against you, based on all the things they've said and the longtime intensity of those expressed feelings. And you'd be right to request that.
Likewise, if a judge had expressed such feelings about our military, such as it is, with particular focus on Adm Davinescu, and a case came up about the military, you'd probably ask for recusal in that instance, too. Someone who vows that they hate the military, want to abolish it, and think the admiral is illegitimate and personally a cancer on Talossa... they can't give a fair hearing to a military case.
Either of those situations would probably be a serious impediment to someone's confirmation in your eyes, I would hope. If someone was nominated who had expressed such vehement hostility to important aspects of Talossa for a long time, hopefully it would at least give you pause. But here, it's so much bigger, because the monarchy has been the center of a ton of important cases. I think that V probably would have a hard time giving the Crown's side, in terms of the crown itself, a fair hearing.
If you're really honest, I think you have to admit that this is at least a legitimate objection, even if you think it's outweighed by other factors or that you just really believe he'll manage to be fair. Please don't pretend I'm engaged in some crazed witch-hunt, where V's brave thoughtcrime has made him the subject of a cruel inquisition and where anyone else who dares to venture a feeble criticism of power might be the next victim. The guy swore angry vendetta against the king and monarchy for years. You might not care because you want the end goal, and he's your friend and you believe him and think he's qualified, and you don't really care about the monarchy, but that's on you. This is a legitimate issue.
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 16, 2020, 06:43:50 PMQuoteIt is fairly important that V has expressed immense animus against the king, personally, in addition to the throne. He swore there would be no peace until abdication, remember?
"Swore". It would be funny if he actually did swear, and I'm sure you have the receipts. But I don't consider it good precedent to declare that personal animus previously expressed towards a prominent person is disqualifying for a Justice (if it were, given Talossan history, we'd be short of candidates) - as long as the candidate can convince the Cort that they would do their job. I would have the same attitude if it were one of the many, many Talossans who have expressed personal animus against me up for nomination.
While you have been in the government for a really, really long time, I don't think you are quite the institution that we find in the reigning sovereign. Give it time, though! Six more years and you might have a case. Two-person monarchy!
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 16, 2020, 06:43:50 PMQuoteI think you also had a significant record of temperance and good faith best efforts as a track record.
Why, thank you. I honestly assumed I was in the same "hateful, corrupt, grudge-holder" basket as V.
You both have your strengths and weaknesses, as I do and as do we all.
