WHEREAS, it is the commonly understood purpose of a judge of any court of law to effectuate the law;
WHEREAS, it is immensely improper of a judge of any court of law to ignore the law for any reason;
WHEREAS, it is at best a high misdemeanor of a judge of any court of law to misapply the law willfully and knowingly;
WHEREAS, it is at worst an attack on the rule of law and the principles thereof whenever a judge of any court of law may misapply the law willfully and knowingly;
WHEREAS, it is a misapplication of the law and thus a crime if or when a judge of any court of law enter a judgement or a dictum contravening the law or causing a miscarriage of justice;
WHEREAS, the concept of justice is nebulous and unclear;
WHEREAS, it is commonly understood that because of the unclear nature of justice we the citizens of Talossa have chosen to be a nation of laws and to obey the rule of law;
WHEREAS, the law supersedes necessarily any faint, unclear, or subjective evaluations of justice,
BECAUSE, a nation would be without its laws subject to the whims and fancies of errant or unsound judges; and
WHEREAS, the nation of Talossa wishes not to be the victim of an errant or unsound judge who ignores the law in order to apply justice in whichever manner he may personally find suitable without regard to the written laws of our Ziu:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cosă and the Senäts in Ziu assembled that the contemporary Senior Judge of the Uppermost Cort, the right honorable Ián M.T. Tamorán, S.H., is impeached and shall be removed from such office forthwith for such high crimes and misdemeanors as exhibited by the following articles of impeachment:
FIRST, a miscarriage of justice: The Senior Judge committed multiple gross and plain errors during the course of a recent criminal case and, according to the Uppermost Cort itself, committed an incredible error again when entering an acquittal for the same case. The Senior Judge did not adhere to established procedure, did not apply due process for all involved parties, and prejudiced the trial. These things results in a miscarriage of justice which is likely to repeat itself in the future.
SECOND, the incredible unbecoming conduct: Recently the Senior Judge made a public statement. He said, to wit, "[T]he function of Justice is Justice, not Law. Human law is an attempt to codify Justice, but in final analysis Justice cannot fully be codified or restricted into unwavering pre-ordained channels - it is more subtle, and deeper, than that." This statement alone is disqualifying and constitutes a high misdemeanor. It taints any future judgements which he may enter in future cases or controversies. Moreover, the Senior Judge has admitted publicly thereby that he does not intend to be a judge of the law, but a judge for whatever justice he personally finds suitable. Talossa is a nation of laws, and no judge of its courts may render justice without regard to those laws. Those who have done otherwise, do otherwise, or will do otherwise are unbecoming of the judiciary and must not hold any judicial office.
The above is a draft, insofar as I invite the public at large to debate, speak and comment on this matter. The original bill may be amended in whole or in part, and there is no reason why it could not be amended to a censure rather than an impeachment.
Having made these disclaimers, I invite now that anyone, even Tamoran himself, explain why he should not be removed from the Cort by this Ziu. Please explain how his official actions and public statements do not, somehow, mean that he will not violate the rule of law again.
I ask that you discuss the MERITS and NOT the political convenience. Any calculation against his removal based on whether the move would be "popular" is a perversion of the rule of law.
It will surprise no-one to know that I consider Tamorán SJ's ruling in re: "Sebastian Panache" to be an aggressive violation of both Talossan law and common sense.
I am not in anyway soothed by his recent Witt post, which seemed to be laying the groundwork for an argument that Talossan judges should be allowed to ignore our law in favour of a "higher justice" (the argument that "common law" could override the will of the Legislature with Royal assent was disposed of in England in the Middle Ages).
I am also aware that many Talossans consider this Government to be aggressive and confrontational, that we simply ignore or dismiss people who get in our way, and I have no wish to promote that misconception. (There is a time to push on and there is a time to listen to dissenting voices.)
I am also aware that the chief executive of Talossa's Big Neighbour is scaring many people with the creeping authoritarianism of his attempted purge from the Executive branch of anyone who looked at him crosseyed once or might resist carrying out his increasingly deranged whims. I do not want to be seen as a Talossan Trump, or it to be thought that this Government punishes civil servants who don't do our will.
In summary:
a) the Free Democrats will not take any position on this motion, and will instead offer a free vote to all our Senators and MCs, and advise our coalition partners to do the same.
b) I would like Tamorán SJ to be formally summoned before the Ziu to give his defence before we pass any bill of impeachment.
c) I would like to suggest a formal Censure if there is not the requisite majority for impeachment.
I strongly advise against removing one of the most Talossa's most accomplished jurists because of one dumb ruling.
This is not just about "one dumb ruling". I will reiterate the quote from the man himself: "[T]he function of Justice is Justice, not Law. Human law is an attempt to codify Justice, but in final analysis Justice cannot fully be codified or restricted into unwavering pre-ordained channels - it is more subtle, and deeper, than that."
That is worrisome logic. That is not the sort of logic which should sit on the bench. How would you feel if you filed a suit and it was dismissed with prejudice because the judge "said so", or because the judge thought that such a decision was "natural justice", despite the law? That's what Tamoran is contending: that judges have an inherent power to ignore or subvert the law if doing so is in the "greater interest of justice", however that particular judge defines 'justice' in that particular moment.
But you are cordially invited to discuss the merits and the defense beyond the popularity or beyond your personal feelings of the individual. I wonder what you have to say about Tamoran besides "one dumb ruling" or "one of Talossa's most accomplished jurists"?
Please explain how his official actions and public statements do not, somehow, mean that he will not violate the rule of law again.
Point of clarification: the Uppermost Cort did not find that Justice Tamoran erred. One solitary justice did, in a case that did not set legal precedence. I am not the entire UC and don't speak for it alone.
Also, I don't know if it is established that misapplying justice is in and of itsel a crime, as stated in the resolution.
Quote from: Açafat del Val on March 02, 2020, 10:53:06 PM
This is not just about "one dumb ruling". I will reiterate the quote from the man himself: "[T]he function of Justice is Justice, not Law. Human law is an attempt to codify Justice, but in final analysis Justice cannot fully be codified or restricted into unwavering pre-ordained channels - it is more subtle, and deeper, than that."
That is worrisome logic. That is not the sort of logic which should sit on the bench. How would you feel if you filed a suit and it was dismissed with prejudice because the judge "said so", or because the judge thought that such a decision was "natural justice", despite the law? That's what Tamoran is contending: that judges have an inherent power to ignore or subvert the law if doing so is in the "greater interest of justice", however that particular judge defines 'justice' in that particular moment.
But you are cordially invited to discuss the merits and the defense beyond the popularity or beyond your personal feelings of the individual. I wonder what you have to say about Tamoran besides "one dumb ruling" or "one of Talossa's most accomplished jurists"?
Please explain how his official actions and public statements do not, somehow, mean that he will not violate the rule of law again.
My previous statement had nothing to do my personal feelings for the Senior Justice or his overall popularity. I simply pointed out he has a long record of good service in the Judiciary that you seem to be ignoring because of one ruling (which, at least to me, seemed based on a plausible reading of the law, though a very strange one) and one passing comment that is much more likely to be a philosophic wax than a statement that will color his future rulings.
Yes, because we have so many eligible people to act as Justices on the Uppermost Cort, you chuck out the Justice that actually has been active in the last few months. Good idea.
This government is becoming more and more unacceptable, pushing through unwanted laws, suggesting bullying against fellow citizens, or throwing away good and active Justices like we have a great pool of jurists.
... point of order, I just made a very careful speech indicating that the Government is not supporting (or opposing) Senator del Vál's motion in any way, and neither are the Free Democrats. Either you know this and are fomenting political disinformation, or you are so keen to start a political fist-fight you don't care who you throw mud at.
Quote from: Magniloqueu Épiqeu Ac'hlerglünä da Lhiun on March 04, 2020, 02:16:54 AM
Yes, because we have so many eligible people to act as Justices on the Uppermost Cort, you chuck out the Justice that actually has been active in the last few months. Good idea.
This government is becoming more and more unacceptable, pushing through unwanted laws, suggesting bullying against fellow citizens, or throwing away good and active Justices like we have a great pool of jurists.
ITT the PM has stated that the government is not taking a position on this and that the Freedems won't be whipping votes on this. The Distain and leader of AMP is speaking out against the motion. I haven't said anything yet because I really don't feel like touching it with a long stick, but I share the views of the AMP leader.
So, exactly what Miestra just said above.
Don't expect this Bill to pass with massive margins.
In looking at this, I'm not sure I can find full cause for a straight-out impeachment here. The ruling was unpopular, maybe. But let's keep the overall picture of Talossa's societal health in the picture here.
While I subscribe to the legal theory that a previously incumbent public official may be subject to impeachment still after his resignation, I do notify the public at large that I have ceased to entertain this bill and have no intentions at this time or in the future to put it in the Hopper.