Judge sticks his nose in.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Yeah, so, regarding the most recent case I saw?

It would be nice if, instead of relying on my interpretation (which isn't binding precedent since it's a General Cort-level decision, and couldn't become biding precedent under the Organic Law even if appealed to the Uppermost Cort because it couldn't get a three-judge panel after recusals), you guys could either revise the statute law to explicitly say the inactivity-retirement system is a Notice of Reprimand procedure requiring concurrence of 2/3rds the Cosa, or, alternatively, revise the OrgLaw to make the existing procedure unquestionably Organic.

What exactly you should do is, I think, too much a policy (and thus political) matter for it to be proper for me to make a specific recommendation.

But I do think the absolute worst place for there to be any obvious room for differing interpretations in Talossan law is over the question of who has the power and responsibility to definitively interpret Talossan law.