As you may have seen in another thread, my bill that would nominate
@Sir Ian Plätschisch to the Uppermost Cort is eligible to go on the last Clark of this term.
However, I thought it proper to ask the members of the Ziu more broadly, especially Opposition members, whether they would prefer this be delayed to enable confirmation hearings, like we have had for some (not all) previous candidates.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 27, 2025, 01:52:59 PMAs you may have seen in another thread, my bill that would nominate @Sir Ian Plätschisch to the Uppermost Cort is eligible to go on the last Clark of this term.
However, I thought it proper to ask the members of the Ziu more broadly, especially Opposition members, whether they would prefer this be delayed to enable confirmation hearings, like we have had for some (not all) previous candidates.
If we have done confirmation hearings in the past then I think we should do them for this nomination too. I can't imagine the cause for a hurry when judicial business is infrequent.
I crave to hear how Members of the Ziu intend to organise a confirmation hearing. Note that these are a relative minority, pretty much set up because former Justice V was such a controversial choice.
Two things:
1. I think it's a good idea to have a full Court sooner rather than later, and infrequent judicial business should not really be an excuse to have the seat filled on May 22nd at the earliest, especially as three out of four most cases - Hammond v. Cézembre, Davinescu v. Txechescu and Grischun v. Chancery - all arose out of the aftermath of a general election;
2. MZs have plenty of time before voting on the Clark ends to question the nominee if they wish to do so; besides, the raisons d'etre for the in depth scrutiny of V - his personal character and the then lifetime appointment to the UC - are no longer relevant in this situation.
Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 31, 2025, 03:19:25 PM2. MZs have plenty of time before voting on the Clark ends to question the nominee if they wish to do so; besides, the raisons d'etre for the in depth scrutiny of V - his personal character and the then lifetime appointment to the UC - are no longer relevant in this situation.
Cool. Let's move forward with a confirmation thread (?) for questions to the nominee. I do think this should be the norm not the exception.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 31, 2025, 05:07:15 PMQuote from: Sir Lüc on January 31, 2025, 03:19:25 PM2. MZs have plenty of time before voting on the Clark ends to question the nominee if they wish to do so; besides, the raisons d'etre for the in depth scrutiny of V - his personal character and the then lifetime appointment to the UC - are no longer relevant in this situation.
Cool. Let's move forward with a confirmation thread (?) for questions to the nominee. I do think this should be the norm not the exception.
Well you will all have plenty of time now 😅