Well, that's illegal, since the law directs specific whole changes in each case.  You can't replace a provision in its entirety with two different new versions and keep them in superposition or whatever.  The law has to be one specific written thing.

But you have a good point about the folks in charge agreeing on an outcome here.  That's really all that matters right now, since it means there's no legal risk to the Scribe or SoS for writing up a third new version of Lexh.E.4.  Legal risk would require someone charging them with a crime.  The Government's not going to do that, so they don't need to worry.  I guess hypothetically a private citizen could do a Roman prosecution, but the Government could even appeal a potential conviction unopposed.  And there's no future prospect of a government that might reverse that decision, either.  So everyone involved is pretty much safe as houses.

Fair enough and never mind :)

Quote from: Lüc on March 12, 2020, 08:51:21 AM
The appearance of forum roles and personal titles (the two thingies under your username) have been tweaked.

Additionally, I have added a "Talossan Since" profile field. I may do a round of copying dates from OldWitt this weekend, but in any case everyone is welcome to fill in their own.

I'm thinking about also adding a "full name" field, so people can still display their Talossan name AND retain perhaps a nickname for their actual display name.

Good job, thank you as usual.

Both bills direct the whole replacement of Lexh.E.4.  It is impossible to scribe both.

Apropos of nothing, since the PTB are afire about provincial mergers, I want to say that I am fully in favor of M-M absorbing other provinces (it is our right and destiny), but I have two preconditions that I think are absolutely necessary to such mergers:

1. We should add their cultural distinctiveness to our own, but not lose ours in the process.  The province should remain named "Maritiimi-Maxhestic" in large part, symbolically recognizing our extraordinary history as a beacon of provincial activity and prosperity.
2.  There should not be any diminution of M-M political power.  This means we should aim for a provincial merger that maintains the political separateness of the entities in order to preserve our Senats votes, confederating them without obliterating either.

Quote from: Sevastáin Pinátsch on February 06, 2020, 05:05:07 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on February 06, 2020, 03:23:59 PM
Is there a block function?  I couldn't find one.

https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore;

Ah, it's a dropdown under Modify Profile.  Thank you!

Is there a block function?  I couldn't find one.

Ben morgun, buna vhespra, es azul.
Good morning, good evening, and hello.

One of the most vital traits for a Talossan is to be willing and able to forge their own path.  Talossa is not for those who calmly tread the well-traveled walkways -- it is a country for those who see their goal on the horizon and take it upon themselves to push their way through the thicket of convention, following the star of their own convictions.  Iason Bitxichë Taiwos is one such, working with another Talossan to develop an exclave of Talossanicity out in the wilds of Ohio (in the United States).  He has created new words and traditions, and begun introducing them to others who might adopt them.  It is the essence of Talossa, and deserves recognition.

Well done, Iason Bitxichë Taiwos!

Obviously I'm not averse to bugging V with questions, but it seems unfair to grill him here informally at the same time as his hearing.  If you have follow-up questions, then you can just submit them to the hearing by sending them to Luc.  The hearing rules already provide for them to be approved.

It's not controversial to say that, since it was admitted in open court that you got to post a thread and discuss the case on the FreeDem forum.  I couldn't see that or respond, but the justice admitted that he did read it (though he didn't comment on your theory of the case).  The defendants nor I didn't get a chance to write any private arguments that you couldn't read.  That's the sinister aspect of ex parte -- it lets one side describe their theory of the case, unchallenged.

Well, I guess the fact that the newest justice doesn't believe in precedent is good, in some ways, since it means that we can reargue the same case the next time it comes up.  So we have that going for us, at least.

Why do you care about the name decision?  It doesn't even matter if it's bad, since if the same thing comes up, we can just argue the point again with "new evidence and new legal theories."  I mean, it sucks in the sense that it's absurd and embarrassing, but it's not as if it will matter in the long term.

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 20, 2020, 05:09:26 PM
... ya Allà, reading those threads reminds me of why I had to take 6 months off Talossa after the Proclamation Crisis. AD's legal tactics caused me literal sleepless nights and deprived me of all joy in this nation.

Not sure, by the way, why you bring this up so often.  I think that whole thing was really unethical -- the idea that you got to discuss and make arguments in private to a justice is so weird.  I understand that the cort agreed as a panel that it was impractical to condemn the practice, given the small size of Talossa, but you'd still never find me repeatedly reminiscing about the time I got to make ex parte arguments and won the resulting case which had been decided the opposite way very recently.

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 20, 2020, 06:29:54 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 20, 2020, 06:06:12 PM
The cort decided, and then later it accepted a new case looking at the same principle with different evidence and arguments.

Which is what V said happened in New York regularly. QED.

It's a bold stance to say that precedent doesn't matter, but I admire you for taking that stance.

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 20, 2020, 05:00:36 PM

Quote from: King John on January 20, 2020, 04:52:19 PM
the most important case in which stare decisis was, I think we can all agree, entirely ignored...

there wasn't any "petition to re-argue", nor any re-argument.  Simply the Cort announcing a different decision in a case they'd already decided. 

That is simply false. I may not have used the term "petition to re-argue", but I forwarded a petition which presented different facts and alternative legal reasoning to the original decision re: 47RZ28, which the UC accepted. I find it hard to believe you don't remember this, but there you are: there was an original case, then the Government asked for the case to be re-heard on different evidence and a different legal principle.

Are you aware of the fact that you're vehemently arguing in favor of the king's point?  Like... yes, that's the whole thing that's wrong! 

The cort decided, and then later it accepted a new case looking at the same principle with different evidence and arguments.  The whole point of precedent is that this isn't supposed to happen a lot, otherwise no one really knows what the law is, since interpretation of the disputed point might change from one day to the next and then back again.  Read your petition again.  You describe the cort's ruling in order to argue it should be overturned, suggesting that a repugnant conclusion (invalidation of all amendments) argues against it and so the cort should vacate its previous decision.  You explicitly ask for the decision to be vacated and overturned!

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 20, 2020, 02:08:42 PM
You said that Talossa was a place where people can be what they can't be in real life; well, I'm sorry that real life doesn't offer you enough places to be a smart-ass.

It is true that no one in my macronational political career blesses me with such excellent cues.

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 20, 2020, 02:08:42 PM
Seriously: the King is still going on about the Proclamation Crisis? Talk about "holding a grudge". And honestly I think V's answer to that was great: that in New York law, courts get petitions to re-argue quite often, and sometimes they admit they get it wrong.

I think you brought it up?  If you didn't think it was worth mentioning, then mentioning it seems strange.

Minor point of correction: V was nominated as a justice, not head of state. But I do share your concerns. Anyone who is asked whether or not they still hate the questioner and has to find a way to avoid the question... well, that presents a problem.

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 16, 2020, 06:43:50 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2020, 03:52:48 PM
Oddly and I'm sure by accident, you cut off the last bit of that sentence.

Nope, did it on purpose, to emphasise that you think Republican views contribute to disqualifying for a UC justice. If you mean that only when in conjunction with "personal animus", then I'll accept that - but then you're opening the door for everyone of professed Republican sympathies to be interrogated (or their Witt posts searched) as to whether they don't like the King personally, while those of Monarchist views (who might have a real problem with the incumbent, who might for example want KR1 back) get away free.

Yes, virulent opposition to one of the institutions of State contributes to a candidate's fitness.  To the extent that someone considers the monarchy to be illegitimate and oppressive, as V has stated in the past, that suggests that they will be biased against cases involved the monarchy, which are frequent.  The fact that V also has expressed deeply personal animus against HM is an additional factor, as is the likely possibility he will need to recuse himself on such cases.

I mean, honestly, Miestra, sometimes you get these blinders on when it comes to stuff like this.  I'm not sure I would call it "partisan," exactly, but you're contorting yourself to ignore really plain facts in order to get at your desired conclusion.

Imagine you had a judge who said that all republicans were an abomination and the Republic should be stricken from memory.  No, that's pretty mild.  Imagine that you had a judge who said much worse things, and aimed a lot of them at you, personally.  They declared you were a cancer on Talossa, etc etc.  They said they didn't recognize your authority as Seneschal because you weren't a real Talossan.  They said this stuff for years, publicly and repeatedly.

Now, former republicans (and aspiring future ones) constitute an important part of our country.  If this judge were going to hear your case, you'd probably request their recusal, right?  They're probably going to be biased against you, based on all the things they've said and the longtime intensity of those expressed feelings.  And you'd be right to request that.

Likewise, if a judge had expressed such feelings about our military, such as it is, with particular focus on Adm Davinescu, and a case came up about the military, you'd probably ask for recusal in that instance, too.  Someone who vows that they hate the military, want to abolish it, and think the admiral is illegitimate and personally a cancer on Talossa... they can't give a fair hearing to a military case.

Either of those situations would probably be a serious impediment to someone's confirmation in your eyes, I would hope.  If someone was nominated who had expressed such vehement hostility to important aspects of Talossa for a long time, hopefully it would at least give you pause. But here, it's so much bigger, because the monarchy has been the center of a ton of important cases.  I think that V probably would have a hard time giving the Crown's side, in terms of the crown itself, a fair hearing.

If you're really honest, I think you have to admit that this is at least a legitimate objection, even if you think it's outweighed by other factors or that you just really believe he'll manage to be fair.  Please don't pretend I'm engaged in some crazed witch-hunt, where V's brave thoughtcrime has made him the subject of a cruel inquisition and where anyone else who dares to venture a feeble criticism of power might be the next victim.  The guy swore angry vendetta against the king and monarchy for years.  You might not care because you want the end goal, and he's your friend and you believe him and think he's qualified, and you don't really care about the monarchy, but that's on you.  This is a legitimate issue.

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 16, 2020, 06:43:50 PM

QuoteIt is fairly important that V has expressed immense animus against the king, personally, in addition to the throne. He swore there would be no peace until abdication, remember?

"Swore". It would be funny if he actually did swear, and I'm sure you have the receipts. But I don't consider it good precedent to declare that personal animus previously expressed towards a prominent person is disqualifying for a Justice (if it were, given Talossan history, we'd be short of candidates) - as long as the candidate can convince the Cort that they would do their job. I would have the same attitude if it were one of the many, many Talossans who have expressed personal animus against me up for nomination.

While you have been in the government for a really, really long time, I don't think you are quite the institution that we find in the reigning sovereign.  Give it time, though!  Six more years and you might have a case.  Two-person monarchy!

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 16, 2020, 06:43:50 PM

QuoteI think you also had a significant record of temperance and good faith best efforts as a track record.

Why, thank you. I honestly assumed I was in the same "hateful, corrupt, grudge-holder" basket as V.

You both have your strengths and weaknesses, as I do and as do we all.