[TNC STATEMENT] Thank you, Talossa!

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

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?

[Viteu]

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?

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.

[Viteu]

Also, to which Talossan cort would one appeal a decision of the UC?

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

Also, 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 😉

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

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.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

Eh... that seems too Lucy goosey... maybe we should become a kritocracy, judges all the way to the top xD

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

@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?

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

@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 Upp

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.

@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.

[Viteu]

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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

@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.

[Viteu]

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.

@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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

@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.

[Viteu]

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.

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

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.

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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

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.