I think that the most important qualities for a Talossan jurist are respect for procedure and respect for history.  I am not sure that I am actively cultivating either quality, so to speak, but I do possess an abundance of both.  Procedure makes Talossan law both fair and interesting; the former because it allows for clear expectations and opportunities for fulness of argument, and the latter because it helps give Talossans a reason to be Talossan.

I think that the Talossan Bar will look to the example of judges.  If justices show that they value clear arguments based on principle and precedent, then that is what lawyers will learn to present.  The lawyer class can contribute most of all by simply existing more than they do.  There are almost no active lawyers in the country.

It is certainly a strength that Talossan law is accessible to amateurs, and it should always be thus.  Being able to do Talossan law is one of the fun things to do in Talossa, and so it's good for the country that we allow those who haven't gone to formal law school to be involved right from the start.  There are few activities in which a new Talossan can engage, and so it's important to preserve them where they can be found.

I like the idea of doctrinal interpretation -- a focus on the principles of a particular case and the relevant precedent.  I think this should have special relevance for Talossan law because of it has been such a scattershot field, with very few consistent practitioners over time on either side of the bench.  This results in a fundamental inequity, since any case can be decided on any conceivable theoretical basis and there is very little surety under the law.  That's a problem, since it means Talossans sometimes lack even the most basic knowledge about what their laws permit.  Is such-and-such a crime?  If there's even the slightest ambiguity or contradiction in the wording of the law, then it's a crapshoot.  And while that happens under any legal system, Talossa has shown an unusual degree of instability.  Establishing clear precedents and tests based on the fundamental principles at hand, supported by a majority of the Cort will help alleviate that.

That's all very broad, but it's a broad question -- if you have any further questions on any particular point, I'd be happy to elaborate.

I do not know exactly how this approach will interact with the philosophies of other potential justices, but I would be surprised to find any difficulties.

I apologize for breaking the rules.  I was confused.  Rule 14 states:

"14. The first speech of the hearing shall be reserved to the nominee himself, unless he reject this privilege knowingly and willfully, so that he may make his own introduction. The Chairman or Deputy Chairman may invite that the nominee make the final speech."

The first speech is reserved to me, and in combination with the wording about the final speech, I assumed that you were simply waiting for me to proceed.  I didn't think that Rule 9 applied in this regard, but in the future I will request leave to speak when otherwise prompted by the rules.

So it was a simple misunderstanding on my part.  Won't happen again.

Just checking in -- I see that BenArd has posted a very kind statement.  Is there a schedule posted somewhere?

ESB, the rules say that you can.  Any senator may grant you a portion of their time.  Maybe message your senator asking for the opportunity -- I don't think anyone was turned away the first time they did this.

Senator dal Val, I put up my opening statement.  Please send me a PM if/when I get any questions, if you have a chance.  Don't want to miss any or cause anyone to lose their time, but I don't check Witt every day anymore (since these days, there's only a post or two a day).

Azul.  I would like to thank the senators for their time and commend them for their duty, since holding these new hearings is an interesting and fun thing to do -- and that makes them good for the country, even beyond their value as hearings.

I'm not sure what might be considered qualifications for this office, but Dama Litz and the Royal Talossan Bar bestowed a Bachelor's in Talossan Law on me in 2012.  I have been a practicing lawyer for something like ten years now, having represented clients in a dozen or so cases, including several that went through to trial.

Beyond that, I have some accomplishments.  I organized the creation of our national legal code, el Lexhatx.  I have held positions in both government and the royal civil service, including the Seneschalsqab.  I have been involved with many cultural endeavors, such as writing much of the wiki and organizing the modern timeline of Talossan history.  In addition, I created and edited the newspaper Beric'ht Talossan for a couple of years, setting a tiresome number of records (biggest organization, first corporation, etc) but also never missing a single biweekly deadline.  There's more, but it's boring and braggy to just list things like this.

Recently, the Seneschal asked me if I would be willing to serve on the Cort.  I am.

If you have any questions, I will try to answer them.

Sure.  I have a brief opening statement.

I don't know that you can force people to be interested in anything, no matter the good intentions.  I know that's been tried a lot, and it's never succeeded.  Every time there's been legit provincial activity -- here or in Fiova or wherever -- it's come from people just being interested in it on its own merits.  I'm trying to imagine the person who might enter the country because they're interested in the places with activity, and being told that they aren't allowed to get involved in those places until after four, five, six, or seven months.

Is it possible you could stop leaving the same notes repeatedly on the Digest of Laws?  It's insane to keep noting every month that the database is the primary source, or keep noting who the monarch is.  That's not actually useful information for anyone looking at the laws, and it makes it harder to look through the actual laws, and it makes the page way longer (and it's already a long page) for no reason, and you're just making more work for yourself.  I did it myself but had to roll it back, since I'm legally not allowed.  It's entirely your call what to do, but I just don't understand this.

Here is an edit with that stuff removed, to save you the trouble if you decide to go with my recommendation.  There's just the information that people come to the page for, neatly organized and presented: http://wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Digest_of_Laws&oldid=27246

If you want to be recognized for your work, maybe I could write a bill and get someone to sponsor it that will do the job?  Give you some special award or something?  The Wonderful Award for GV as Thanks for Amazing Dedication from a Great Talossan?  You certainly have done a ton and deserve it.

Take care of yourself, my friend.

I can be reached via PM here on Witt.

7 years means 114 of 187 total citizens would be the committee.  6 makes it a 122-person committee instead.  I love the idea of a committee composed of 61% (or 65%) of the whole.

I agree to be nominated.

For the hearing, you can do it pretty much however you want.  I'm indifferent.  I can't commit to being able to post more than once a day in reply to questions, though, I think.

Quote from: Açafat del Val on April 20, 2020, 09:47:49 AM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on April 19, 2020, 10:22:11 PM
You also accidentally removed the power of prorogation from the king, and also accidentally forgot to mention that significant shift in the checks and balances of our system.

The removal of the power of prorogation was not accidental; it was intentional. I see that the only vehicle for a Warrant of Prorogation is to delay a Clark in order to form a government or the like. Under this bill, that would be a needlessly redundant mechanism, because there would be already an automatic month of recess for exactly this purpose.

Why else should the King want to prorogue the Ziu anyways? Or should the King have a unilateral ability to prorogue the Ziu at any time for any reason? If so, we might have a different definition of 'democratic parliamentary monarchy'.

As for the "shift in checks and balances"... What would this bill cause which is not already a reality? Name a time in any parliamentary or semi-presidential system when the head of state did NOT appoint a prime minister who would control the majority of the lower house. In other words, having the Seneschal elected directly by the Cosa is practicably no different than having the Seneschal appointed by the King; it's the same result.

On the other hand, are you proposing that the King have the option to appoint a Seneschal who would not command the confidence of the Cosa? If so, we might have again a different definition of 'democratic parliamentary monarchy'.

A lot of these questions you're asking would have been better asked before you wrote the bill.  C'est la vie, though.  I'll let you get back to it.

You also accidentally removed the power of prorogation from the king, and also accidentally forgot to mention that significant shift in the checks and balances of our system.