Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 06:15:47 AMYesQuote from: Andrïeu Cabischabuerg on November 15, 2025, 08:59:57 PMI am a vexillologist, and I would like to join the Royal Academy of Vexillology.Is this still something that interests you, S:reu Cabischabuerg?
-SVA
Quote from: King Txec on Today at 03:05:23 PMI would support removing so-called advisory opinions but it would be useful if someone like the Chancellor or the Bar or some other lawyerly type was available to provide guidance in cases that don't rise to the high bar of the Cort pu Inalt.
-Txec R
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Today at 02:00:27 PMSorry, not a member of el Coletx, but can I just add here that it drives me wild when people (usually US Americans) think titles of knighthood "Sir"/"Dame" is a title which goes with a surname, not a first name. Elton John and Paul McCartney are referred to as "Sir Elton" and "Sir Paul" respectively.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 01:59:57 PMThis change would ensure that a lawsuit could be brought only when there was a live case or controversy. The court would only hear a case if there was some existing problem that they could solve, in other words. I think it's a problem because it makes the judiciary into an ad hoc legislature that is only presented with one side before making their ruling, rather than an adversarial process.
Such a change kind of seems like the opposite of what you were going for, which was expanding the advisory opinion role in which authorized people can just ask the court to rule about something that's not in front of them. So I'm very surprised to hear you say that.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 01:30:02 PMAdvisory opinions should be minimized as much as possible. In many countries, they are used as a method of ad hoc lawmaking. I'd prefer advisory opinions be removed completely, and instead use a "case or controversy" standard.