Welcome to Wittenberg!

Author Topic: Talossan judicial precedents  (Read 2874 times)

Offline Miestră Schivă, UrN

  • Prime Minister
  • Citizen
  • Posts: 838
  • Large and In Charge
    • Talossan since: 2004-06-12

    • View Profile
    • Free Democrats of Talossa
Re: Talossan judicial precedents
« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2020, 10:09:47 PM »
Well, okay. But I'm interested on whether you think that the Cort agreeing to hear the second case against 47RZ28 was (a) a violation of stare decisis; (b) analogous to a NY "motion to re-argue"; (c) a different case which was presented and argued properly, which I think are all the possible options. If I'd known the King was going to bring this up I would have asked you myself.

Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Talossa. Ask me anything.
JOIN THE FREE DEMOCRATS OF TALOSSA - ask me how!

"IS INACTIVITY BAD? I THINK NOT!" - Lord Hooligan

Offline Viteu

  • Puisne Justice of the Uppermost Court
  • Citizen
  • Posts: 88
  • emper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
    • Talossan since: 2006

    • View Profile
Re: Talossan judicial precedents
« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2020, 10:14:02 PM »
Alright. I'm done for the night. I do believe in jurisprudence and stare decisis. I spent hours researching Talossan jurisprudence to discuss it in my interview. AD, I think you misunderstood me. I'd appreciate if you could reread.what I put. I also suggest you look up this motion in your home jurisdiction (it exists). Say what you want about me, but do not paint me as an activist judge who will cast aside jurisprudence. You will get from me not only someone who truly believes in stare decisis, but has been writing an article for three years on the topic. I'd be the first person on that Cort that can discuss the topic thoroughly. You saying that I don't care about jurisprudence or stare decisis is actually a very hurtful personal attack because it's a bedrock to my legal philosophy. I hope you will take a step back and reconsider what said.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2020, 10:30:37 PM by Viteu »
Viteu Marcianüs
Judge of the Uppermost Cort

Offline Viteu

  • Puisne Justice of the Uppermost Court
  • Citizen
  • Posts: 88
  • emper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
    • Talossan since: 2006

    • View Profile
Re: Talossan judicial precedents
« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2020, 10:15:14 PM »
Well, okay. But I'm interested on whether you think that the Cort agreeing to hear the second case against 47RZ28 was (a) a violation of stare decisis; (b) analogous to a NY "motion to re-argue"; (c) a different case which was presented and argued properly, which I think are all the possible options. If I'd known the King was going to bring this up I would have asked you myself.

Can you all give me until tomorrow to respond? I obviously have some reading to do.
Viteu Marcianüs
Judge of the Uppermost Cort

Offline Sir Alexandreu Davinescu

  • Rexhaint d'Ian Regeu/Regent for King John
  • Citizen
  • Posts: 523
  • CONSISTE ET COGITA
    • Talossan since: 6-9-2006

    • View Profile
Re: Talossan judicial precedents
« Reply #33 on: January 21, 2020, 12:56:04 PM »
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.
Bitter struggles deform their participants in subtle, complicated ways. ― Zadie Smith
Revolution is an art that I pursue rather than a goal I expect to achieve. ― Robert Heinlein

Offline Viteu

  • Puisne Justice of the Uppermost Court
  • Citizen
  • Posts: 88
  • emper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
    • Talossan since: 2006

    • View Profile
Re: Talossan judicial precedents
« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2020, 07:28:11 AM »
I appreciate that.  I've decided to clarify this matter up a bit in my closing statement. I'm also weighing whether that closings statement should be video.

In the interim, you can see a recent outtake of my closing statement at: https://youtu.be/lj3iNxZ8Dww
Viteu Marcianüs
Judge of the Uppermost Cort