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.

SJ Cjantscheir has opted to cease active politicking while the UC comes to consensus on the issue of political Judges.

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.

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: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on February 03, 2023, 05:13:43 PM

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.

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.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on February 03, 2023, 04:58:34 PM

Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 04:51:03 PM

Quote 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?

@Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN , what say you?

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on February 03, 2023, 04:49:08 PM

Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 04:47:00 PM

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.

A different thread would be a better place. Thanks.

Why?

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, 04:44:38 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.

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.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 03:57:15 PM

Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:45:19 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 03:39:54 PM

Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PM

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.

Correct! :)

Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PM

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.

...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 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 03:39:54 PM

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!

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.)

*pushes creaky door into office open, looks around, sits on dirty chair, blows dust off of desk, grabs a piece of paper and pen, scribbles pen on napkin for ink*

Thanks to a nonsensical interpretation of "actual or apparent conflict of interest" that not even Alito-style mental gymnastics can understand proffered by the TNC, I'm back in politics. Let's get the opposition solidified.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 03, 2023, 03:39:54 PM

Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PM

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.

Correct! :)

Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:13:00 PM

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.

...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 PM

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!

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: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:29:52 PM

Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:27:50 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:23:01 PM

Quote from: Viteu on February 03, 2023, 03:21:10 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 03, 2023, 03:18:41 PM

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.

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.