Bel Talossa, graschciăs cair voastra bacar!
Beautiful Talossa, thank you for your support!
The word "wow" has been bouncing around my thunderstruck mind for an hour now.
With your votes, you have given one party a mandate to govern for the first time in nearly a decade. With your voice, you have stood up for this Kingdom. With your vision, we are ready to deliver on a platform that places the important priorities of the Kingdom at the fore!
We started this campaign with a commitment to our political colleagues and to Talossans that we would run a positive and hopeful campaign focused on the priorities we hold most important. And thanks to the cordial conduct of the Free Democrats, the PdR, Dien, and the Parti Tafialista this campaign ended in much the same way it began. The election demonstrated that Talossa is blessed with a panoply of talent. And that we are capable of dialogue even when there are deep disagreements. I sincerely thank the outgoing Seneschal,
@Ian Plätschisch, for demonstrating a sense of care and commitment to the Kingdom through his consistent competence. It is an example I hope to emulate in the coming months.
I also express my gratitude to
@Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @xpb @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN @Muhammed Yasir @Eovart Xhorxh @Bråneu Excelsio @Tric'hard Lenxheir
@Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat and
@Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù for making the Talossan National Congress a vehicle for hopeful change.
A party leader's luck is as extensive as their team's talents. I tell you publicly what I have told you privately: You make me proud. And in the coming months Talossa will learn through your work just why.
To friend and colleague and adversary alike, I say, let's work together where and when we can for the betterment of the Kingdom. Let's continue the comity and cordiality of the campaign because there is much to be done. And let us not shrink before the challenges we face. Let us work harder than ever to make that sunlit dream of Talossa an ever more tangible reality.
Graschciăs Talossa!
Breneir
I urge the King and the incoming Cosa majority to use the provisions of the just-passed 57RZ19 to establish a new Government with the utmost alacrity. The outgoing Government is keen to facilitate the changeover. (I should note that, re: the ministries of STUFF and Technology, the requisite passwords are all in the possession of the Permanent Secretary Lüc da Schir.)
"We just stepped on their face with a hobnail boot and broke their nose! We just crushed their face!"
-Larry Munson, Georgia Bulldogs radio announcer
I suppose this is as good a place to put this as any ;D
Talossa, Talossa, land of red and green!
With ballots cast, and election clean,
The will of the people was heard and seen!
Talossa, Talossa, land of green and red!
On the shoulders of giants we now tread,
New dawn light begining to spread!
Talossa, Talossa, land for one and all!
It may be, that our Kingdom is small,
but the Talossan People will always stand tall!
Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on February 02, 2023, 07:02:57 PMI suppose this is as good a place to put this as any ;D
Talossa, Talossa, land of red and green!
With ballots cast, and election clean,
The will of the people was heard and seen!
Talossa, Talossa, land of green and red!
On the shoulders of giants we now tread,
New dawn light begining to spread!
Talossa, Talossa, land for one and all!
It may be, that our Kingdom is small,
but the Talossan People will always stand tall!
This is beautiful, Carlus!
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 02, 2023, 07:45:13 PMQuote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on February 02, 2023, 07:02:57 PMI suppose this is as good a place to put this as any ;D
Talossa, Talossa, land of red and green!
With ballots cast, and election clean,
The will of the people was heard and seen!
Talossa, Talossa, land of green and red!
On the shoulders of giants we now tread,
New dawn light begining to spread!
Talossa, Talossa, land for one and all!
It may be, that our Kingdom is small,
but the Talossan People will always stand tall!
This is beautiful, Carlus!
Meirci!
Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on February 02, 2023, 07:02:57 PMI suppose this is as good a place to put this as any ;D
Talossa, Talossa, land of red and green!
With ballots cast, and election clean,
The will of the people was heard and seen!
Talossa, Talossa, land of green and red!
On the shoulders of giants we now tread,
New dawn light begining to spread!
Talossa, Talossa, land for one and all!
It may be, that our Kingdom is small,
but the Talossan People will always stand tall!
Wonderful - Couldn't have put it any better!
So we're cool with UC Judges politicking? Asking for me.
Well, yeah, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to sit in the Cosă to begin with. I wonder whose idea was that.
(Though, interestingly, according to Talomat the TNC is in favour of apolitical judges.)
Quote from: Lüc on February 03, 2023, 12:11:19 PMWell, yeah, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to sit in the Cosă to begin with. I wonder whose idea was that.
(Though, interestingly, according to Talomat the TNC is in favour of apolitical judges.)
Cool. If any matter comes before the UC involving any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever, no matter how remote, I fully expect SJ Cjantscheir to recuse herself sua sponte. I hope that the Cort's current inactivity continues, at least it relates to anything in which SJ Cjantscheir must recuse herself, given that we'd be down to two-to-three judges to adjudicate matters. Brava.
Unlike others, I will continue to refrain from further politicking.
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 12:18:35 PMCool. If any matter comes before the UC involving any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever, no matter how remote, I fully expect SJ Cjantscheir to recuse herself sua sponte.
The law was specifically changed in recognition of the fact that judges often felt exiled to inactivity by their position, given how much of Talossan public life involves politics both directly and indirectly. Accordingly, judges are now permitted to engage in partisan politics and work in the Government.
I'd generally presume the standard for recusal is the one set out for magistrates in the law, clearly: they "must recuse themselves from a matter upon a real or apparent conflict of interest." The standard you're proposing for recusal seems unrealistically broad, and I don't see any real reason for it. It essentially obviates the very change set into law to allow judges to participate in politics, in fact, since the vast majority of all Talossan cases involve the Government or elections. It also flies pretty directly in the face of direct Talossan precedent affirmed by the full Cort, which has found that allowances must be made in our small community for close associations that might be taken in other contexts for conflicts of interest.
I should note that Justice V has taken the issue of judicial non-partisanship so seriously that he refrains from actively participating in Free Democrat internal forums. So, even if the argument holds water that UC Judges are allowed to be openly partisan, V is attempting to set a counter-example of good behaviour.
Meanwhile, the Secretary of State was under permanent political pressure in the last Cosa, with actual laws being filed to keep him under surveillance, for far less than this. I suggest a single standard of seemly behaviour for members of political parties in non-partisan official roles.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 12:56:18 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 12:18:35 PMCool. If any matter comes before the UC involving any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever, no matter how remote, I fully expect SJ Cjantscheir to recuse herself sua sponte.
The law was specifically changed in recognition of the fact that judges often felt exiled to inactivity by their position, given how much of Talossan public life involves politics both directly and indirectly. Accordingly, judges are now permitted to engage in partisan politics and work in the Government.
When was Article VIII, section 3 of the Organic Law changed? Or is this some other law that was changed? If so, which and when?
QuoteI'd generally presume the standard for recusal is the one set out for magistrates in the law, clearly: they "must recuse themselves from a matter upon a real or apparent conflict of interest." The standard you're proposing for recusal seems unrealistically broad, and I don't see any real reason for it. It essentially obviates the very change set into law to allow judges to participate in politics, in fact, since the vast majority of all Talossan cases involve the Government or elections. It also flies pretty directly in the face of direct Talossan precedent affirmed by the full Cort, which has found that allowances must be made in our small community for close associations that might be taken in other contexts for conflicts of interest.
The creative interpretation to the standard that you are proposing would allow Litz to vote for a statute just to turn around and require a litigant to force her to show her why her vote was wrong. That is an actual conflict of interest by any definition.
My standard aligns perfectly and naturally with the standard that you referenced. I am most certain that you would not feel comfortable with me being in the Ziu, voting against legislation proposed or supported by the Government, and then having someone else sue the State or Government about that legislation only for it to come before me on the Cort. It appears to me that you're attempting one standard for the TNC and another standard for everyone else. Perhaps you can prove me wrong by the TNC keeping its word in favor of apolitical judges.
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 01:21:53 PMWhen was Article VIII, section 3 of the Organic Law changed? Or is this some other law that was changed? If so, which and when?
2015, I think it was? Although then it was XVI.3, not VIII. It originally prohibited judges from being MCs or Senators. The MC part was repealed that year, and the Senator part a few years later.
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 01:21:53 PMThe creative interpretation to the standard that you are proposing would allow Litz to vote for a statute just to turn around and require a litigant to force her to show her why her vote was wrong. That is an actual conflict of interest by any definition.
My standard aligns perfectly and naturally with the standard that you referenced.
I am most certain that you would not feel comfortable with me being in the Ziu, voting against legislation proposed or supported by the Government, and then having someone else sue the State or Government about that legislation only for it to come before me on the Cort. It appears to me that you're attempting one standard for the TNC and another standard for everyone else.
Listen, if someone votes on a bill, and then that law itself is challenged, that's one thing. But you said she should recuse on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever." That's a much broader statement. If it was just inelegantly expressed and you just really mean direct or apparent conflict of interest, that's fine -- that's not going to encompass, "hey you voted to make this a crime, you can't try me for the crime now." Since again, that inherently invalidates the whole idea of judges being in politics.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 02:54:41 PM2015, I think it was? Although then it was XVI.3, not VIII. It originally prohibited judges from being MCs or Senators. The MC part was repealed that year, and the Senator part a few years later.
Org.L.VIII.3 expressly prohibits a UC Judge from being Seneschal or a member of the Cabinet.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 02:54:41 PMListen, if someone votes on a bill, and then that law itself is challenged, that's one thing. But you said she should recuse on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever." That's a much broader statement. If it was just inelegantly expressed and you just really mean direct or apparent conflict of interest, that's fine -- that's not going to encompass, "hey you voted to make this a crime, you can't try me for the crime now." Since again, that inherently invalidates the whole idea of judges being in politics.
Nope. Any legislation that is voted upon by a Judge of the UC who happens to also be a Senator or MC necessarily creates an actual conflict of interest if that legislation is challenged in court. It's that simple. But the TNC's apparent about face is noted. Being as the TNC has adopted a strained definition of actual conflict of interest that does not align with its obvious meaning, I am re-entering Talossan politics and asking the FreeDems for one seat in the Cosa.
I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically,
@Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and
@Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMI want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.
Most welcome, Viteu.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:18:41 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMI want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.
Most welcome, Viteu.
Are you preparing your statement for the next about-face when I am presiding over a matter that involves legislation for which I voted non? I think your voters have a right to know in advance if you would plan to contest the very scenario that
@Baron Alexandreu Davinescu has countenanced.
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:21:10 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:18:41 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMI want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.
Most welcome, Viteu.
Are you preparing your statment for the next about-face when I am presiding over a matter that involves legislation for which I voted non? I think your voters have a right to know in advance if you would plan to contest the very scenario that @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu has countenanced.
We are preparing for government, Viteu, as a majority of voters wished.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:23:01 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:21:10 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:18:41 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMI want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.
Most welcome, Viteu.
Are you preparing your statment for the next about-face when I am presiding over a matter that involves legislation for which I voted non? I think your voters have a right to know in advance if you would plan to contest the very scenario that @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu has countenanced.
We are preparing for government, Viteu, as a majority of voters wished.
Not only does the TNC not care that it misled voters, but it also does not care about maintaining an apolitical bench. Thanks for clarifying,
@Breneir Tzaracomprada! I look forward to being in the Ziu again.
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:27:50 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:23:01 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:21:10 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:18:41 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMI want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.
Most welcome, Viteu.
Are you preparing your statment for the next about-face when I am presiding over a matter that involves legislation for which I voted non? I think your voters have a right to know in advance if you would plan to contest the very scenario that @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu has countenanced.
We are preparing for government, Viteu, as a majority of voters wished.
Not only does the TNC not care that it misled voters, but it also does not care about maintaining an apolitical bench. Thanks for clarifying, @Breneir Tzaracomprada! I look forward to being in the Ziu again.
As I stated previously, Viteu, you are most welcome. Welcome back to the Ziu and I look forward to working with you and other MZs for the sake of our kingdom.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:29:52 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:27:50 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:23:01 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:21:10 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:18:41 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMI want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.
Most welcome, Viteu.
Are you preparing your statment for the next about-face when I am presiding over a matter that involves legislation for which I voted non? I think your voters have a right to know in advance if you would plan to contest the very scenario that @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu has countenanced.
We are preparing for government, Viteu, as a majority of voters wished.
Not only does the TNC not care that it misled voters, but it also does not care about maintaining an apolitical bench. Thanks for clarifying, @Breneir Tzaracomprada! I look forward to being in the Ziu again.
As I stated previously, Viteu, you are most welcome. Welcome back to the Ziu and I look forward to working with you and other MZs for the sake of our kingdom.
(https://media.tenor.com/T2ukO4-zHJ4AAAAd/the-mask-award.gif)
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:36:53 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:29:52 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:27:50 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:23:01 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:21:10 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:18:41 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMI want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.
Most welcome, Viteu.
Are you preparing your statment for the next about-face when I am presiding over a matter that involves legislation for which I voted non? I think your voters have a right to know in advance if you would plan to contest the very scenario that @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu has countenanced.
We are preparing for government, Viteu, as a majority of voters wished.
Not only does the TNC not care that it misled voters, but it also does not care about maintaining an apolitical bench. Thanks for clarifying, @Breneir Tzaracomprada! I look forward to being in the Ziu again.
As I stated previously, Viteu, you are most welcome. Welcome back to the Ziu and I look forward to working with you and other MZs for the sake of our kingdom.
(https://media.tenor.com/T2ukO4-zHJ4AAAAd/the-mask-award.gif)
Oh, I love that movie. And that is actually one of my favorite scenes in the movie. 😀 It seems like your return will be fun and invigorating to the nation.
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 02:54:41 PM2015, I think it was? Although then it was XVI.3, not VIII. It originally prohibited judges from being MCs or Senators. The MC part was repealed that year, and the Senator part a few years later.
Org.L.VIII.3 expressly prohibits a UC Judge from being Seneschal or a member of the Cabinet.
Correct! :)
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 02:54:41 PMListen, if someone votes on a bill, and then that law itself is challenged, that's one thing. But you said she should recuse on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever." That's a much broader statement. If it was just inelegantly expressed and you just really mean direct or apparent conflict of interest, that's fine -- that's not going to encompass, "hey you voted to make this a crime, you can't try me for the crime now." Since again, that inherently invalidates the whole idea of judges being in politics.
Nope. Any legislation that is voted upon by a Judge of the UC who happens to also be a Senator or MC necessarily creates an actual conflict of interest if that legislation is challenged in court.
...okay? I urge you to read what I'm actually writing. I specifically just listed that as a rather different matter than what you actually proposed a moment ago: recusal on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMBut the TNC's apparent about face is noted. Being as the TNC has adopted a strained definition of actual conflict of interest that does not align with its obvious meaning, I am re-entering Talossan politics and asking the FreeDems for one seat in the Cosa.
I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.
...? You have been able to join the Ziu for years, whenever you wished.
I guess I don't really get your line of thought, here. You seemed to be saying that it is an inherent conflict of interest for a judge to be in the Ziu, but now you're saying you're going to do it anyway because... well, it's not really clear? I don't get it, but it's definitely not illegal or unethical for you to be an MZ. That's been the case for years. If you've changed your mind, that's fine :) The more, the merrier!
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 03:39:54 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 02:54:41 PM2015, I think it was? Although then it was XVI.3, not VIII. It originally prohibited judges from being MCs or Senators. The MC part was repealed that year, and the Senator part a few years later.
Org.L.VIII.3 expressly prohibits a UC Judge from being Seneschal or a member of the Cabinet.
Correct! :)
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 02:54:41 PMListen, if someone votes on a bill, and then that law itself is challenged, that's one thing. But you said she should recuse on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever." That's a much broader statement. If it was just inelegantly expressed and you just really mean direct or apparent conflict of interest, that's fine -- that's not going to encompass, "hey you voted to make this a crime, you can't try me for the crime now." Since again, that inherently invalidates the whole idea of judges being in politics.
Nope. Any legislation that is voted upon by a Judge of the UC who happens to also be a Senator or MC necessarily creates an actual conflict of interest if that legislation is challenged in court.
...okay? I urge you to read what I'm actually writing. I specifically just listed that as a rather different matter than what you actually proposed a moment ago: recusal on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."
What I proposed "a moment ago" is entirely at odds with the notion that a UC Judge can preside over a challenge to legisltation or Government conduct that the UC Judge supported in the Ziu, and at odds with what you're saying. I encourage you to read what I am actually saying.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 03:39:54 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMBut the TNC's apparent about face is noted. Being as the TNC has adopted a strained definition of actual conflict of interest that does not align with its obvious meaning, I am re-entering Talossan politics and asking the FreeDems for one seat in the Cosa.
I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.
...? You have been able to join the Ziu for years, whenever you wished.
I guess I don't really get your line of thought, here. You seemed to be saying that it is an inherent conflict of interest for a judge to be in the Ziu, but now you're saying you're going to do it anyway because... well, it's not really clear? I don't get it, but it's definitely not illegal or unethical for you to be an MZ. That's been the case for years. If you've changed your mind, that's fine :) The more, the merrier!
Don't be daft this early in the new Ziu, AD. I'm saying that the TNC has thrown out any concept of an apolitical and neutral UC bench, and that I will follow its lead and test its theory that a political bench is good for Talossa.
I don't know why you're bothered. You've won this round. V is back in politics. It's going to be an eh-ee-double-hockey-sticks-uva ride.
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:45:19 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 03:39:54 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 02:54:41 PM2015, I think it was? Although then it was XVI.3, not VIII. It originally prohibited judges from being MCs or Senators. The MC part was repealed that year, and the Senator part a few years later.
Org.L.VIII.3 expressly prohibits a UC Judge from being Seneschal or a member of the Cabinet.
Correct! :)
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 02:54:41 PMListen, if someone votes on a bill, and then that law itself is challenged, that's one thing. But you said she should recuse on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever." That's a much broader statement. If it was just inelegantly expressed and you just really mean direct or apparent conflict of interest, that's fine -- that's not going to encompass, "hey you voted to make this a crime, you can't try me for the crime now." Since again, that inherently invalidates the whole idea of judges being in politics.
Nope. Any legislation that is voted upon by a Judge of the UC who happens to also be a Senator or MC necessarily creates an actual conflict of interest if that legislation is challenged in court.
...okay? I urge you to read what I'm actually writing. I specifically just listed that as a rather different matter than what you actually proposed a moment ago: recusal on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."
What I proposed "a moment ago" is entirely at odds with the notion that a UC Judge can preside over a challenge to legisltation or Government conduct that the UC Judge supported in the Ziu, and at odds with what you're saying. I encourage you to read what I am actually saying.
You keep aggressively agreeing with me about that, and I really don't know why. Yes, I think that a direct challenge to a law that someone helped pass is maybe a conflict of interest. But that isn't the only thing within the standard you proposed, which was recusal on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."
Pasta is food, but not all food is pasta. The fact that a direct challenge to a law a judge publicly supported might be a conflict of interest does not mean that all political possible action by a judge creates a conflict of interest.
Obviously you yourself don't agree with your own proposed standard, since you're asking to join the Ziu on behalf of the FDT! Surely you're not here announcing that you think your judgment will now be compromised?
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:45:19 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 03:39:54 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMBut the TNC's apparent about face is noted. Being as the TNC has adopted a strained definition of actual conflict of interest that does not align with its obvious meaning, I am re-entering Talossan politics and asking the FreeDems for one seat in the Cosa.
I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.
...? You have been able to join the Ziu for years, whenever you wished.
I guess I don't really get your line of thought, here. You seemed to be saying that it is an inherent conflict of interest for a judge to be in the Ziu, but now you're saying you're going to do it anyway because... well, it's not really clear? I don't get it, but it's definitely not illegal or unethical for you to be an MZ. That's been the case for years. If you've changed your mind, that's fine :) The more, the merrier!
Don't be daft this early in the new Ziu, AD. I'm saying that the TNC has thrown out any concept of an apolitical and neutral UC bench, and that I will follow its lead and test its theory that a political bench is good for Talossa.
I don't know why you're bothered. You've won this round. V is back in politics. It's going to be an eh-ee-double-hockey-sticks-uva ride.
I guess you can conceivably be apolitical and be a politician representing voters as an MC or senator, maybe? Can't quite figure that one out, since they seem like inherently political roles to me.
Is it that you think we're sad that a relatively inactive citizen has decided to become more active and join the Ziu? We're not! It's basically one of our main goals. :)
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 03:57:15 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:45:19 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 03:39:54 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 02:54:41 PM2015, I think it was? Although then it was XVI.3, not VIII. It originally prohibited judges from being MCs or Senators. The MC part was repealed that year, and the Senator part a few years later.
Org.L.VIII.3 expressly prohibits a UC Judge from being Seneschal or a member of the Cabinet.
Correct! :)
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 02:54:41 PMListen, if someone votes on a bill, and then that law itself is challenged, that's one thing. But you said she should recuse on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever." That's a much broader statement. If it was just inelegantly expressed and you just really mean direct or apparent conflict of interest, that's fine -- that's not going to encompass, "hey you voted to make this a crime, you can't try me for the crime now." Since again, that inherently invalidates the whole idea of judges being in politics.
Nope. Any legislation that is voted upon by a Judge of the UC who happens to also be a Senator or MC necessarily creates an actual conflict of interest if that legislation is challenged in court.
...okay? I urge you to read what I'm actually writing. I specifically just listed that as a rather different matter than what you actually proposed a moment ago: recusal on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."
What I proposed "a moment ago" is entirely at odds with the notion that a UC Judge can preside over a challenge to legisltation or Government conduct that the UC Judge supported in the Ziu, and at odds with what you're saying. I encourage you to read what I am actually saying.
You keep aggressively agreeing with me about that, and I really don't know why. Yes, I think that a direct challenge to a law that someone helped pass is maybe a conflict of interest. But that isn't the only thing within the standard you proposed, which was recusal on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."
Pasta is food, but not all food is pasta. The fact that a direct challenge to a law a judge publicly supported might be a conflict of interest does not mean that all political possible action by a judge creates a conflict of interest.
Obviously you yourself don't agree with your own proposed standard, since you're asking to join the Ziu on behalf of the FDT! Surely you're not here announcing that you think your judgment will now be compromised?
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:45:19 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 03:39:54 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PMBut the TNC's apparent about face is noted. Being as the TNC has adopted a strained definition of actual conflict of interest that does not align with its obvious meaning, I am re-entering Talossan politics and asking the FreeDems for one seat in the Cosa.
I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.
...? You have been able to join the Ziu for years, whenever you wished.
I guess I don't really get your line of thought, here. You seemed to be saying that it is an inherent conflict of interest for a judge to be in the Ziu, but now you're saying you're going to do it anyway because... well, it's not really clear? I don't get it, but it's definitely not illegal or unethical for you to be an MZ. That's been the case for years. If you've changed your mind, that's fine :) The more, the merrier!
Don't be daft this early in the new Ziu, AD. I'm saying that the TNC has thrown out any concept of an apolitical and neutral UC bench, and that I will follow its lead and test its theory that a political bench is good for Talossa.
I don't know why you're bothered. You've won this round. V is back in politics. It's going to be an eh-ee-double-hockey-sticks-uva ride.
I guess you can conceivably be apolitical and be a politician representing voters as an MC or senator, maybe? Can't quite figure that one out, since they seem like inherently political roles to me.
Is it that you think we're sad that a relatively inactive citizen has decided to become more active and join the Ziu? We're not! It's basically one of our main goals. :)
On the contrary—I entirely think that no UC Judge, including myself, has the ability to be neutral and impartial when adjudicating a matter that involves government conduct, the election, or legislation supported by the UC Judge when that UC Judge has publicly supported it (including voting for the legislation or propping up the Government supporting the conduct). You seem to think that I am suggesting something else because I am asking the FreeDems for a seat in the Ziu.
What I am actually saying is that the TNC and you have said it does not matter if the foregoing creates an actual or apparent conflict of interest, and therefore I needn't hold myself to a standard that the TNC does not wish to enforce against the UC Judges within its own ranks. Meaning, the TNC is saying "who cares if there may be an actual or apparent conflict of interest?" I am saying, "okay cool. Let's fully test this theory."
If, however, Litz resigned the UC or stated that she would cease politicking and not accept any seats in the Ziu, I would happily maintain my retirement from Talossan politics and drop the issue. But until then, I fully intend to make sure the TNC gets exactly what it supports.
(And this is not a direct attack on Litz per se. I'm annoyed that we're abolishing the notion of having an apolitical UC bench simply because it favors the new Government.)
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 04:06:38 PMOn the contrary—I entirely think that no UC Judge, including myself, has the ability to be neutral and impartial when adjudicating a matter that involves government conduct, the election, or legislation supported by the UC Judge when that UC Judge has publicly supported it (including voting for the legislation or propping up the Government supporting the conduct). You seem to think that I am suggesting something else because I am asking the FreeDems for a seat in the Ziu.
Well, yes. If you're saying that a judge can't be neutral and impartial in a case involving anything they've publicly supported in any way as a politician, or anything that might adversely affect the party they support, and you really
believe that, then I don't see how you then want to be a politician again. Since it seems like you'll end up recusing a lot, since you'd need to recuse on anything that might harm the interests of the FDT or anything touching on any law or proposal which you've voted or supported in any way. The only alternative interpretation is that you are announcing your intention to become a judge who isn't neutral and impartial, and that doesn't seem your style.
I get that you disagree with the idea that a judge should be allowed to be a politician, and maybe you weren't aware that this has been the law for many years. That's fine -- I think reasonable people can definitely disagree on this one, and if we were larger or had more for judges to do, I'd agree with you.
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 04:06:38 PMWhat I am actually saying is that the TNC and you have said it does not matter if the foregoing creates an actual or apparent conflict of interest, and therefore I needn't hold myself to a standard that the TNC does not wish to enforce against the UC Judges within its own ranks. Meaning, the TNC is saying "who cares if there may be an actual or apparent conflict of interest?" I am saying, "okay cool. Let's fully test this theory."
That is explicitly not what we're saying. We're saying that there are aspects of political involvement that don't preclude neutrality, but not
all of them.
But I guess I don't really want to argue too hard with you -- I'm happy you're rejoining more active involvement in Talossa! :)
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 04:06:38 PMIf, however, Litz resigned the UC or stated that she would cease politicking and not accept any seats in the Ziu, I would happily maintain my retirement from Talossan politics and drop the issue. But until then, I fully intend to make sure the TNC gets exactly what it supports.
Litz has been an MC for quite some time already... And other judges have even served in the Government -- as Seneschal, even! This change dates back to like, eight years ago.
I will not be recusing myself *from anything* while we have a politicized UC bench. The TNC cannot, without speaking out of both sides of its mouth, take umbrage with that.
I find it baffling that someone who takes judge neutrality so seriously is willing to completely throw away their principles on a (ironically politically motivated?) whim.
Technically I am a *Community Jurist*
This horse is good and beat. Let's move on folks. This entire conversation is derailing the purpose of the thread.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on February 03, 2023, 04:44:38 PMThis horse is good and beat. Let's move on folks. This entire conversation is derailing the purpose of the thread.
Talossans responding to a party thanking Talossans is derailment. Ooooookkkkkaaaayyyyy.
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 04:47:00 PMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on February 03, 2023, 04:44:38 PMThis horse is good and beat. Let's move on folks. This entire conversation is derailing the purpose of the thread.
Talossans responding to a party thanking Talossans is derailment. Ooooookkkkkaaaayyyyy.
A different thread would be a better place. Thanks.
Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on February 03, 2023, 04:40:43 PMI find it baffling that someone who takes judge neutrality so seriously is willing to completely throw away their principles on a (ironically politically motivated?) whim.
I find it baffling that the TNC thinks that an apolitical Judiciary is nonsensical.
I find it baffling that you and the TNC think that the TNC is entitled to a different set of rules than everyone else.
I find it baffling that you're okay with having a politicized UC bench.
But that's cool. Keep thinking you're not the problem.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on February 03, 2023, 04:49:08 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 04:47:00 PMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on February 03, 2023, 04:44:38 PMThis horse is good and beat. Let's move on folks. This entire conversation is derailing the purpose of the thread.
Talossans responding to a party thanking Talossans is derailment. Ooooookkkkkaaaayyyyy.
A different thread would be a better place. Thanks.
Why?
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 04:51:03 PMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on February 03, 2023, 04:49:08 PMA different thread would be a better place. Thanks.
Why?
Wittiquette Rule # 9 - Don't de-rail or take a thread off the original topic by posting another topic or changing the subject.
This conversation about judicial philosophy and judges holding seats in the Ziu is not the original topic of the conversation. I'm politely asking you to move on or start a new thread. I'd be happy to move the conversation for you if you wish.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on February 03, 2023, 04:58:34 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 04:51:03 PMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on February 03, 2023, 04:49:08 PMA different thread would be a better place. Thanks.
Why?
Wittiquette Rule # 9 - Don't de-rail or take a thread off the original topic by posting another topic or changing the subject.
This conversation about judicial philosophy and judges holding seats in the Ziu is not the original topic of the conversation. I'm politely asking you to move on or start a new thread. I'd be happy to move the conversation for you if you wish.
I don't agree. What is the recourse? Do I sue and hope it comes before me on the UC?
You don't have to agree with a polite suggestion to move on. You've not directly violated Wittiquette as you've not been rude or abusive. I'm simply suggesting this conversation threatens to derail the topic. If you want to be angry, fine. Be angry. I've already been called a pompous bureaucrat today, so why not. Pile it on.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on February 03, 2023, 05:09:36 PMYou don't have to agree with a polite suggestion to move on. You've not directly violated Wittiquette as you've not been rude or abusive. I'm simply suggesting this conversation threatens to derail the topic. If you want to be angry, fine. Be angry. I've already been called a pompous bureaucrat today, so why not. Pile it on.
I should point out that my suggestion was not directed at you Viteu. I was talking to
everyone posting in the thread on the topic.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on February 03, 2023, 05:13:43 PMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on February 03, 2023, 05:09:36 PMYou don't have to agree with a polite suggestion to move on. You've not directly violated Wittiquette as you've not been rude or abusive. I'm simply suggesting this conversation threatens to derail the topic. If you want to be angry, fine. Be angry. I've already been called a pompous bureaucrat today, so why not. Pile it on.
I should point out that my suggestion was not directed at you Viteu. I was talking to everyone posting in the thread on the topic.
Okay. Because I really question how calling attention to the TNC for its apparent about-face with respect to an apolitical Judiciary where the TNC is thanking voters for their support, which includes, presumably, this position, violates Wittiquette.
Like, I don't think it's the role of the State to protect a political party in this circumstance.
But now we are derailing the thread so I'll cease commenting on Wittiquette.
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 04:52:19 PM@Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN , what say you?
PJ Marcianüs does raise some valid points which I agree with and other points I don't.
I do believe this is an issue that we, the Justices of the CpI, need to have an open and honest discussion on and collectively decide what is the best approach for Justices of the CpI and in the best interests of Talossa. I have replied to PJ Marcianüs' email in our chambers to start this discussion and hopefully, we all can reach a consensus on what is expected of CpI Justices going forward.
Therefore, until such a time that the CpI comes to an agreement that it is ok for Justices to hold seats in the Cosa and to be "politically active", I will immediately cease all political activity and will not be accepting any Cosa seats for any party and ask that the SoS reassign any seats allotted to me according to the TNC party's wishes.
Thank you. I look forward to having this conversation among UC Judges. In the interim, I will follow the SJ's example and cease all politicking.
Eh have you checked our big next door neighbours supreme Court recently? They are appointed by a elected leader, which in itself is a political choice... isn't the point of a UC for appeals anyway? if you feel a ruling was biased by politics and have the evidence to back it up, surely you appeal the case on those grounds?
Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on February 05, 2023, 05:38:05 PMEh have you checked our big next door neighbours supreme Court recently? They are appointed by a elected leader, which in itself is a political choice... isn't the point of a UC for appeals anyway? if you feel a ruling was biased by politics and have the evidence to back it up, surely you appeal the case on those grounds?
SCOTUS Justices routinely recuse themselves in matters in which they presided before being appointed (such as if they were an appellate court judge) or if they helped with a statute or regulation. A Justice would not preside over a matter involving their previous work. In fact, a criticism of Thomas is that he doesn't recuse himself from ACA cases when his wife if a lobbies against the ACA.
Also, to which Talossan cort would one appeal a decision of the UC?
Quote from: Viteu on February 05, 2023, 05:58:25 PMAlso, to which Talossan cort would one appeal a decision of the UC?
the king? They are handing down his justice anyway, why not go to the top xD I kid of course 😉
That used to be how it worked in Talossa. The King could simply veto judicial decisions as well as acts of the Ziu. The "good old days" if you're a monarchist, or if the King is on your side.
Eh... that seems too Lucy goosey... maybe we should become a kritocracy, judges all the way to the top xD
Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 05:57:51 PMThank you. I look forward to having this conversation among UC Judges. In the interim, I will follow the SJ's example and cease all politicking.
@Viteu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN @owenedwards How is the conversation going? I know this became a contentious point of discussion a few days ago. Has there been any official policy created on this matter by the Uppermost Cort?
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 06, 2023, 08:09:56 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 05:57:51 PMThank you. I look forward to having this conversation among UC Judges. In the interim, I will follow the SJ's example and cease all politicking.
@Viteu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN @owenedwards
How is the conversation going? I know this became a contentious point of discussion a few days ago. Has there been any official policy created on this matter by the UppQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 06, 2023, 08:09:56 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 05:57:51 PMThank you. I look forward to having this conversation among UC Judges. In the interim, I will follow the SJ's example and cease all politicking.
@Viteu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN @owenedwards
How is the conversation going? I know this became a contentious point of discussion a few days ago. Has there been any official policy created on this matter by the Uppermost Cort?
Checking on this.
The UC works slowly.
But the real question is whether Talossa respects the Rule of Law. Talossa must understand that the Rule of Law requires an independent and impartial judiciary. To allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that involves an election where they stood as a candidate or politicked, or to allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that challenges Government conduct when they help prop up the Government, or to allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that challenges the Organicity of a statute that the UC Judge voted for, is to remove the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
So, either Talossa wants an independent and impartial judiciary (i.e. to keep the Judiciary truly as a separate branch) and wants the Rule of Law, or it does not.
Quote from: Viteu on February 08, 2023, 01:20:55 PMThe UC works slowly.
But the real question is whether Talossa respects the Rule of Law. Talossa must understand that the Rule of Law requires an independent and impartial judiciary. To allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that involves an election where they stood as a candidate or politicked, or to allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that challenges Government conduct when they help prop up the Government, or to allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that challenges the Organicity of a statute that the UC Judge voted for, is to remove the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
So, either Talossa wants an independent and impartial judiciary (i.e. to keep the Judiciary truly as a separate branch) and wants the Rule of Law, or it does not.
@Viteu I will continue to check in on this discussion. I am curious to see what the UC decides with respect to its internal governance. And I suspect, after the recent furore, I'm not the only one watching now.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 08, 2023, 01:25:29 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 08, 2023, 01:20:55 PMThe UC works slowly.
But the real question is whether Talossa respects the Rule of Law. Talossa must understand that the Rule of Law requires an independent and impartial judiciary. To allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that involves an election where they stood as a candidate or politicked, or to allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that challenges Government conduct when they help prop up the Government, or to allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that challenges the Organicity of a statute that the UC Judge voted for, is to remove the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
So, either Talossa wants an independent and impartial judiciary (i.e. to keep the Judiciary truly as a separate branch) and wants the Rule of Law, or it does not.
@Viteu I will continue to check in on this discussion. I am curious to see what the UC decides with respect to its internal governance. And I suspect, after the recent furore, I'm not the only one watching now.
With respect, I do not think that the TNC actually believes that this is really a question/issue for the UC to resolve, especially in light of the administration language in the Legal Repair Act that Mr. Davinescu is pushing. It seems to me that the only reason the TNC cares about the opinion of the UC is because SJ Cjantscheir said she would refer the question to internal discussion. This should not be seen as absolving the TNC of answering whether it supports an independent and impartial Judiciary and, by extension, the Rule of Law, in Talossa.
Quote from: Viteu on February 08, 2023, 02:25:58 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 08, 2023, 01:25:29 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 08, 2023, 01:20:55 PMThe UC works slowly.
But the real question is whether Talossa respects the Rule of Law. Talossa must understand that the Rule of Law requires an independent and impartial judiciary. To allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that involves an election where they stood as a candidate or politicked, or to allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that challenges Government conduct when they help prop up the Government, or to allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that challenges the Organicity of a statute that the UC Judge voted for, is to remove the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
So, either Talossa wants an independent and impartial judiciary (i.e. to keep the Judiciary truly as a separate branch) and wants the Rule of Law, or it does not.
@Viteu I will continue to check in on this discussion. I am curious to see what the UC decides with respect to its internal governance. And I suspect, after the recent furore, I'm not the only one watching now.
With respect, I do not think that the TNC actually believes that this is really a question/issue for the UC to resolve, especially in light of the administration language in the Legal Repair Act that Mr. Davinescu is pushing. It seems to me that the only reason the TNC cares about the opinion of the UC is because SJ Cjantscheir said she would refer the question to internal discussion. This should not be seen as absolving the TNC of answering whether it supports an independent and impartial Judiciary and, by extension, the Rule of Law, in Talossa.
I care, personally, because this would be
an example of the judiciary setting its own guidelines on the issue. That is important to me and I think to upholding the Rule of Law. I eagerly await an announcement of your decision no matter how painstaking and slow it might be.
For those who think that I am manufacturing the argument about the Rule of Law, here is a perspective from the UK:
- State observance of the rule of law requires the availability of effective and impartial dispute resolution mechanisms. This means that citizens must be able to access the courts, and be heard by independent judges, under a fair process. It requires that judges be appointed through a process that is not controlled by the government of the day, and have security of tenure. Judges are not accountable to politicians for their rulings – hence, judges in the UK may voluntarily attend parliamentary committees to discuss the administration of justice, but do so on the understanding that they will not be questioned about particular cases. Flawed judgments can be challenged by legal routes, usually an appeal to a higher court.
- Threats to judicial independence are often considered a particularly worrying sign of democratic backsliding. The removal of an independent judiciary makes it more difficult for citizens to defend themselves against unfair or disproportionate state action, and facilitates the erosion of other facets of democracy – for example, making it more difficult to challenge unfair electoral practices.
- Poland and Hungary are two well-known examples of this. The Polish government has systematically reduced judicial independence via changes to the appointments system and disciplinary arrangements for judges; in Hungary, judicial security of tenure was violated by lowering the retirement age to force out some judges, and later new courts were established to take over some of the most politically sensitive cases. The most extreme attacks on judicial independence in other states have seen judges imprisoned in response to their rulings
- However, independence can also be threatened by less obvious means – in particular rhetoric which pressurises judges to deliver certain rulings, or which aims to reduce public confidence in the judiciary. Hence, Donald Trump was criticised for attacking a 'so-called judge' who struck down one of his executive orders as unconstitutional.
Source: https://constitution-unit.com/2022/12/15/the-rule-of-law-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter/#:~:text=The%20rule%20of%20law%20is,fundamental%20rights%20and%20judicial%20independence.
Quote from: Viteu on February 08, 2023, 04:13:57 PMFor those who think that I am manufacturing the argument about the Rule of Law, here is a perspective from the UK:
- State observance of the rule of law requires the availability of effective and impartial dispute resolution mechanisms. This means that citizens must be able to access the courts, and be heard by independent judges, under a fair process. It requires that judges be appointed through a process that is not controlled by the government of the day, and have security of tenure. Judges are not accountable to politicians for their rulings – hence, judges in the UK may voluntarily attend parliamentary committees to discuss the administration of justice, but do so on the understanding that they will not be questioned about particular cases. Flawed judgments can be challenged by legal routes, usually an appeal to a higher court.
- Threats to judicial independence are often considered a particularly worrying sign of democratic backsliding. The removal of an independent judiciary makes it more difficult for citizens to defend themselves against unfair or disproportionate state action, and facilitates the erosion of other facets of democracy – for example, making it more difficult to challenge unfair electoral practices.
- Poland and Hungary are two well-known examples of this. The Polish government has systematically reduced judicial independence via changes to the appointments system and disciplinary arrangements for judges; in Hungary, judicial security of tenure was violated by lowering the retirement age to force out some judges, and later new courts were established to take over some of the most politically sensitive cases. The most extreme attacks on judicial independence in other states have seen judges imprisoned in response to their rulings
- However, independence can also be threatened by less obvious means – in particular rhetoric which pressurises judges to deliver certain rulings, or which aims to reduce public confidence in the judiciary. Hence, Donald Trump was criticised for attacking a 'so-called judge' who struck down one of his executive orders as unconstitutional.
Source: https://constitution-unit.com/2022/12/15/the-rule-of-law-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter/#:~:text=The%20rule%20of%20law%20is,fundamental%20rights%20and%20judicial%20independence.
In theory the idea of an impartial judiciary is a very good idea but in practice it is impossible, both in Talossa and every other country. Judges are not sequestered away and kept in the dark, they are picked by politicians, they vote, every judge is biased by his or her personal views on politics. In the United States a judge put in office by Donald Trump is more likely to be conservative, one put in office by Joe Biden will be more likely to be liberal. However I do appreciate that the UC is going to discuss this and I assume they will share whatever decision they eventually reach. The parties and their members have no control over the issue as it sits right now and so, other than asking out of curiosity how the discussion is going it is nobody elses business. My only problem with the so-called "impartial judiciary" is the incredibly small number of active, knowledgeable citizens currently available in the country makes it extremely difficult to fill all government vacancies. My final thought on the subject is that the subject should be dropped by all of those not involved in the actual discussion. Sorry Breneir but this means you as well as any others who are not justices and the justices need to have their discussion in private.
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on February 08, 2023, 05:52:57 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 08, 2023, 04:13:57 PMFor those who think that I am manufacturing the argument about the Rule of Law, here is a perspective from the UK:
- State observance of the rule of law requires the availability of effective and impartial dispute resolution mechanisms. This means that citizens must be able to access the courts, and be heard by independent judges, under a fair process. It requires that judges be appointed through a process that is not controlled by the government of the day, and have security of tenure. Judges are not accountable to politicians for their rulings – hence, judges in the UK may voluntarily attend parliamentary committees to discuss the administration of justice, but do so on the understanding that they will not be questioned about particular cases. Flawed judgments can be challenged by legal routes, usually an appeal to a higher court.
- Threats to judicial independence are often considered a particularly worrying sign of democratic backsliding. The removal of an independent judiciary makes it more difficult for citizens to defend themselves against unfair or disproportionate state action, and facilitates the erosion of other facets of democracy – for example, making it more difficult to challenge unfair electoral practices.
- Poland and Hungary are two well-known examples of this. The Polish government has systematically reduced judicial independence via changes to the appointments system and disciplinary arrangements for judges; in Hungary, judicial security of tenure was violated by lowering the retirement age to force out some judges, and later new courts were established to take over some of the most politically sensitive cases. The most extreme attacks on judicial independence in other states have seen judges imprisoned in response to their rulings
- However, independence can also be threatened by less obvious means – in particular rhetoric which pressurises judges to deliver certain rulings, or which aims to reduce public confidence in the judiciary. Hence, Donald Trump was criticised for attacking a 'so-called judge' who struck down one of his executive orders as unconstitutional.
Source: https://constitution-unit.com/2022/12/15/the-rule-of-law-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter/#:~:text=The%20rule%20of%20law%20is,fundamental%20rights%20and%20judicial%20independence.
In theory the idea of an impartial judiciary is a very good idea but in practice it is impossible, both in Talossa and every other country. Judges are not sequestered away and kept in the dark, they are picked by politicians, they vote, every judge is biased by his or her personal views on politics. In the United States a judge put in office by Donald Trump is more likely to be conservative, one put in office by Joe Biden will be more likely to be liberal. However I do appreciate that the UC is going to discuss this and I assume they will share whatever decision they eventually reach. The parties and their members have no control over the issue as it sits right now and so, other than asking out of curiosity how the discussion is going it is nobody elses business. My only problem with the so-called "impartial judiciary" is the incredibly small number of active, knowledgeable citizens currently available in the country makes it extremely difficult to fill all government vacancies. My final thought on the subject is that the subject should be dropped by all of those not involved in the actual discussion. Sorry Breneir but this means you as well as any others who are not justices and the justices need to have their discussion in private.
I appreciate you sharing your opinion, Tric'hard but I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whose business it is. As a question of the rule of law and our democracy, it is every citizen's business how the UC governs itself.
Therefore, at regular intervals, as a concerned citizen, I will continue to follow up until a decision on this question is announced by the UC.
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on February 08, 2023, 05:52:57 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 08, 2023, 04:13:57 PMFor those who think that I am manufacturing the argument about the Rule of Law, here is a perspective from the UK:
- State observance of the rule of law requires the availability of effective and impartial dispute resolution mechanisms. This means that citizens must be able to access the courts, and be heard by independent judges, under a fair process. It requires that judges be appointed through a process that is not controlled by the government of the day, and have security of tenure. Judges are not accountable to politicians for their rulings – hence, judges in the UK may voluntarily attend parliamentary committees to discuss the administration of justice, but do so on the understanding that they will not be questioned about particular cases. Flawed judgments can be challenged by legal routes, usually an appeal to a higher court.
- Threats to judicial independence are often considered a particularly worrying sign of democratic backsliding. The removal of an independent judiciary makes it more difficult for citizens to defend themselves against unfair or disproportionate state action, and facilitates the erosion of other facets of democracy – for example, making it more difficult to challenge unfair electoral practices.
- Poland and Hungary are two well-known examples of this. The Polish government has systematically reduced judicial independence via changes to the appointments system and disciplinary arrangements for judges; in Hungary, judicial security of tenure was violated by lowering the retirement age to force out some judges, and later new courts were established to take over some of the most politically sensitive cases. The most extreme attacks on judicial independence in other states have seen judges imprisoned in response to their rulings
- However, independence can also be threatened by less obvious means – in particular rhetoric which pressurises judges to deliver certain rulings, or which aims to reduce public confidence in the judiciary. Hence, Donald Trump was criticised for attacking a 'so-called judge' who struck down one of his executive orders as unconstitutional.
Source: https://constitution-unit.com/2022/12/15/the-rule-of-law-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter/#:~:text=The%20rule%20of%20law%20is,fundamental%20rights%20and%20judicial%20independence.
In theory the idea of an impartial judiciary is a very good idea but in practice it is impossible, both in Talossa and every other country. Judges are not sequestered away and kept in the dark, they are picked by politicians, they vote, every judge is biased by his or her personal views on politics. In the United States a judge put in office by Donald Trump is more likely to be conservative, one put in office by Joe Biden will be more likely to be liberal. However I do appreciate that the UC is going to discuss this and I assume they will share whatever decision they eventually reach. The parties and their members have no control over the issue as it sits right now and so, other than asking out of curiosity how the discussion is going it is nobody elses business. My only problem with the so-called "impartial judiciary" is the incredibly small number of active, knowledgeable citizens currently available in the country makes it extremely difficult to fill all government vacancies. My final thought on the subject is that the subject should be dropped by all of those not involved in the actual discussion. Sorry Breneir but this means you as well as any others who are not justices and the justices need to have their discussion in private.
Because you think that something is impossible means we shouldn't strive for it?
Quote from: Viteu on February 08, 2023, 07:56:17 PMBecause you think that something is impossible means we shouldn't strive for it?
Have you ever heard of John Hasnas?
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 08, 2023, 08:03:50 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 08, 2023, 07:56:17 PMBecause you think that something is impossible means we shouldn't strive for it?
Have you ever heard of John Hasnas?
I do not agree with his theory that the Rule of Law turns people into slaves of the State.
I googled the guy, saw "Cato Institute" and noped out :D
Quote from: Viteu on February 09, 2023, 11:45:23 AMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 08, 2023, 08:03:50 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 08, 2023, 07:56:17 PMBecause you think that something is impossible means we shouldn't strive for it?
Have you ever heard of John Hasnas?
I do not agree with his theory that the Rule of Law turns people into slaves of the State.
It's more so that the Rule of Law, as most people conceptualize it, is impossible to establish. Statutes will always be ambiguous and are subject to be interpreted according to multiple contradictory legal theories. Judgements are always influenced by a Judge's beliefs, regardless of whether the Judge is attempting impartiality.
I hasten to clarify that there can certainly be degrees to which the Rule of Law is established or not, and that having openly political judges probably doesn't help.
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on February 08, 2023, 05:52:57 PMIn theory the idea of an impartial judiciary is a very good idea but in practice it is impossible, both in Talossa and every other country. Judges are not sequestered away and kept in the dark, they are picked by politicians,
Well, not in every country.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 08, 2023, 06:02:47 PMI appreciate you sharing your opinion, Tric'hard but I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whose business it is. As a question of the rule of law and our democracy, it is every citizen's business how the UC governs itself.
Therefore, at regular intervals, as a concerned citizen, I will continue to follow up until a decision on this question is announced by the UC.
But in 14 days you will be sworn in as the new Seneschal, so you are not only a "concerned citizen" anymore. You should avoid to give the impression of the Chief of Government - the Executive - putting pressure on the Judiciary.
I think it's going to be something of a culture shock for the TNC, who have made a whole shtick about being "just concerned citizens", to actually be responsible for things and thus subject to "concerned citizens" getting on their case
Threatening with a good time! :-) If a bunch of citizens are actively interested and engaged in their country, we will not be upset.
Well, that's certainly not my experience of how the TNC leadership historically react to criticism. I'll always remember that foul remark about my "ravening maw", or the overheated accusations of "wanting to grind up Talossa so small it'll fit in your pocket".
Okay. I'm sincerely glad that you are going to continue being active and productive, for many reasons. I know that you made a solemn promise to retire, but you would be sorely missed if you had kept your word. I hope that you become more involved with the language, get back into media, or just continue your leadership in the Ziu. This would be a very different place without you.
The UC has promulgated a rule (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2314.msg19117#new) addressing the issues surrounding a sitting UC Judge also serving as an MZ.