[SENESCHAL'S OFFICE] Recommendation of a Secretary of State

[Viteu]

I didn't think the previous new system was very good, either. We are agreed on that. I certainly said as much before now, and that opinion isn't changed.

It also sounds like we are agreed that the current system is currently not going to work well unless the law is changed or more justices are appointed. I hope one of these two things will occur soon.

The problem that arose from the statutory component was my fault--I cannot remember if I wrote the GC language at, before, during, or after the JP act. I have this vague memory that it was around the same time. Ultimately, one thing I had in mind in drafting the amendment and statute was King John's concern for continuity. Hence the two-month window and the instant statutory raising to a total of five judges. I was actually trying to maintain, for now, the old system so we could adjust without running to another constitutional amendment. Overall, I was motivated by a versatililty and an efficient organic law section with the rest to be filled in by statutory law. Section 6 was meant as a safeguard if the Ziu did not act,  or somehow just decided no inferior Cort.

So the issue you raise falls to me in my attempt to create something robust, independent, not subject to partisanship, but not requiring tinkering with the fundamental document of State every time we needed an update.

But there is now a bill that would fix this before implementation, and provided we get some CJs, we'd have four UC judges, a trial Cort, and, in theory, a fully functional judiciary.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The problem that arose from the statutory component was my fault--I cannot remember if I wrote the GC language at, before, during, or after the JP act.

Writing things like this is really complicated, especially without sharp scrutiny from others, and it isn't very productive to try to decide whose fault it is.  Don't worry about it.

I think, personally, we should go back to the original system: three justices, one of whom would serve as an initial trial justice.  And that's it.  It's simple and serves all of our needs.  The only change the original system needed was a mechanism to eliminate inactive justices automatically, since that was socially uncomfortable -- that's why the original magistracy was created, if we're real about it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I think, personally, we should go back to the original system: three justices, one of whom would serve as an initial trial justice.

So the other two serving as an appeal Cort, and this two-person Cort being able to set precedent?

I appreciate what you say about being able to force-retire inactive Justices, but that provision never got used.

[Viteu]

The problem that arose from the statutory component was my fault--I cannot remember if I wrote the GC language at, before, during, or after the JP act.

Writing things like this is really complicated, especially without sharp scrutiny from others, and it isn't very productive to try to decide whose fault it is.  Don't worry about it.

I think, personally, we should go back to the original system: three justices, one of whom would serve as an initial trial justice.  And that's it.  It's simple and serves all of our needs.  The only change the original system needed was a mechanism to eliminate inactive justices automatically, since that was socially uncomfortable -- that's why the original magistracy was created, if we're real about it.

That's absolutely possible with the amendment without changing the org law again under section 6. My primary concern with that remains the inherent unfairness to an appellant arguing before either same judge and convincing that judge and two colleagues why they are entitled to relief. Of course, a four judge UC would help that. All of this now falls to the Ziu. And once the amendment is in effect, any statute related to it requires 2/3 Cosa support with simple Senate majority, across two Cosas, to change.  The idea being that trying to change the Cort to something political would be subject to scrutiny in an election. But a change that truly addresses Talossa's needs will be obvious and shouldn't be a partisan issue.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I think, personally, we should go back to the original system: three justices, one of whom would serve as an initial trial justice.

So the other two serving as an appeal Cort, and this two-person Cort being able to set precedent?

I appreciate what you say about being able to force-retire inactive Justices, but that provision never got used.

Yes, that is the idea, except that the original justice would still hear the case -- they just wouldn't be permitted to be the lead.  It's not a perfect system, because appeals are slightly harder if you start out with one vote against you, but it would address the actual real issues our corts have faced.  And since there has never been an appeal heard out to the end, anyway -- to the best of my recollection -- we shouldn't focus on that.

Justices should get kicked off automatically if they don't respond to some sort of judicial busywork, probably, or some similar mechanism.  Our country is too small for real oversight otherwise, since it's either going to be partisan or too socially awkward (as the past has amply demonstrated).

EDIT: Wrote this before I saw V's reply.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The problem that arose from the statutory component was my fault--I cannot remember if I wrote the GC language at, before, during, or after the JP act.

Writing things like this is really complicated, especially without sharp scrutiny from others, and it isn't very productive to try to decide whose fault it is.  Don't worry about it.

I think, personally, we should go back to the original system: three justices, one of whom would serve as an initial trial justice.  And that's it.  It's simple and serves all of our needs.  The only change the original system needed was a mechanism to eliminate inactive justices automatically, since that was socially uncomfortable -- that's why the original magistracy was created, if we're real about it.

That's absolutely possible with the amendment without changing the org law again under section 6. My primary concern with that remains the inherent unfairness to an appellant arguing before either same judge and convincing that judge and two colleagues why they are entitled to relief. Of course, a four judge UC would help that. All of this now falls to the Ziu. And once the amendment is in effect, any statute related to it requires 2/3 Cosa support with simple Senate majority, across two Cosas, to change.  The idea being that trying to change the Cort to something political would be subject to scrutiny in an election. But a change that truly addresses Talossa's needs will be obvious and shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Yeah, I think you could also have four justices or five and the simple system would work great.

As far as I recall, by the way, the soonest a change to the statute could happen would be in more than two months, by the way.  I mean, if I remember correctly, the new system that was just ratified requires that the first Clark have no bills in it, and that second Clark is supposedly supposed to come after a month of recess.  So I don't think any quick fix by the Ziu is possible, thanks to the recent changes.

[Viteu]

Quick reply-the 2/3 requirement across two Cosas *only* applies to the number of judges on the UC and not any inferior Cort, etc.

[Viteu]

The problem that arose from the statutory component was my fault--I cannot remember if I wrote the GC language at, before, during, or after the JP act.

Writing things like this is really complicated, especially without sharp scrutiny from others, and it isn't very productive to try to decide whose fault it is.  Don't worry about it.

I think, personally, we should go back to the original system: three justices, one of whom would serve as an initial trial justice.  And that's it.  It's simple and serves all of our needs.  The only change the original system needed was a mechanism to eliminate inactive justices automatically, since that was socially uncomfortable -- that's why the original magistracy was created, if we're real about it.

That's absolutely possible with the amendment without changing the org law again under section 6. My primary concern with that remains the inherent unfairness to an appellant arguing before either same judge and convincing that judge and two colleagues why they are entitled to relief. Of course, a four judge UC would help that. All of this now falls to the Ziu. And once the amendment is in effect, any statute related to it requires 2/3 Cosa support with simple Senate majority, across two Cosas, to change.  The idea being that trying to change the Cort to something political would be subject to scrutiny in an election. But a change that truly addresses Talossa's needs will be obvious and shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Yeah, I think you could also have four justices or five and the simple system would work great.

As far as I recall, by the way, the soonest a change to the statute could happen would be in more than two months, by the way.  I mean, if I remember correctly, the new system that was just ratified requires that the first Clark have no bills in it, and that second Clark is supposedly supposed to come after a month of recess.  So I don't think any quick fix by the Ziu is possible, thanks to the recent changes.

Gah. Okay, so assuming that's the case, for possibly one month, UC judges can sit on the GC if a case commenced then, based on 13.2.1 as adopted.

"13.2.1. In accord with Section 6 of Article VIII of the Organic Law, any action commenced in the General Cort of Talossa shall be heard by a single Judge of the Cort pü Inalt."

The only issue with the proposed statutory amendment is the ostensible change in UC seats. So if that part is removed, the bill creating CJs could be voted on in the Second Clark, and a change in seats for UC moved to separate legislation.*

Or, there's no real requirement that the seats be filled. So the Government could leave that provision as is to see how things work out.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

once the amendment is in effect, any statute related to it requires 2/3 Cosa support with simple Senate majority, across two Cosas, to change.

Can you quote this provision?  I can't find it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

OrgLaw VIII.3 as amended by 54RZ25:

The Ziu may enlarge the number of seats designated Puisne Judge to no more than eight, and may decrease the number of seats designated Puisne Judge to no less than two, provided that, in addition to the requirements for other legislation, two-thirds of the Cosa and a majority of the Senate support modification in two consecutive Cosas.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

OrgLaw VIII.3 as amended by 54RZ25:

The Ziu may enlarge the number of seats designated Puisne Judge to no more than eight, and may decrease the number of seats designated Puisne Judge to no less than two, provided that, in addition to the requirements for other legislation, two-thirds of the Cosa and a majority of the Senate support modification in two consecutive Cosas.

Yeah, that's what I found, too.  So it only applies to bills that enlarge or shrink the CpI.  So the other statutory bits can be eliminated without the wait.  Good, that makes it easier.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Acting as regent for the crown, I hereby appoint on behalf of His Majesty King John the following officer, and do bid him to perform his duty to the Organic Law and the nation to the best of his ability:

Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM. as the Secretary of State.