Judicial Act

This is a pretty unambitious draft compared to other legislation being proposed (some sections are entirely copy-pasted from our current Judicial Act), but I figured I’d get the ball rolling on this.

The main changes from the current Judicial Act are the removal of the distinction between the Chief Justice and Associate Justices and the incorporation of sentencing into the verdicts of criminal cases.

Apologies in advance for any errors or discrepancies. I’ve been stretched a bit thin recently, but any feedback, comments, and criticism is welcome!

HumanSanity brought this up to me in another law I drafted, but it ought to just be the Prime Minister.

I’d rather Justices also be registered to vote, however that’s defined in the VRA.

The RSA included a provision for judicial review. I’m not sure if it’ll be included in that act, but do we want to define a process for it here?

This should be edited to include non-members with a vested interest in the case, otherwise any cases brought up against individuals who aren’t members would be unable to provide for their defense.

I wonder if it couldn’t be changed to “the law upon which the ruling was based no longer applies”, or something similar.

We might want to maintain the criminal code, if there’s no appetite to amend or alter it.

Thanks for drafting this legislation. Hope we can get it passed soon.

Am I the only one with a problem with the executive branch appointing justices if either the cabinet or PM does? Unless I’m just reading this wrong, and they nominate someone to the assembly for them to vote on.

The Charter says that justices are appointed and approved by the Assembly.

Rulings should always remain in effect even if the laws change. If you broke a law, you broke a law. Doesn’t matter if it changes. You can appeal to the court to have your prior conviction overturned.

They are referring to rulings on legal questions, which related to interpreting what a law means.

I have comments, but they will be posted on the weekend.


Why the preference?

That was meant to be covered by the ability to ask legal questions pertaining to ‘regulations’ — or do you feel that’s unclear with the current wording?

Edited. I also expanded the right to request recusals to non-members with a vested interest.

The draft states appointments to the Court are subject to Assembly approval. With that said, I’ve replaced references to appointment with references to nomination — given that Assembly approval is needed, I think it’s less confusing wording.

We require all other major figures in our government to be registered to vote, why should Justices be excluded from that as well? It’s a basic, but crucial identifier of an individual’s dedication to the Coalition.

I can see why you’d want the officials being elected at a given election to also be participants in that election. I’m not sure what the link is between serving as a Justice and voting in elections, in terms of what the two roles actually entail.

In terms of measuring dedication, I’d imagine the Prime Minister, High Court, and Assembly would consider an individual’s dedication as part of the appointment process and whether that individual is registered to vote could very well be a consideration. I just don’t see why it specifically needs to be codified.

Wonderful, now it seems much clearer. Thank you.

In the absence of further comment, I motion this draft to vote.

I would very much like to comment on this draft before it is brought to a vote. I had comments, as I stated in an earlier post on Dec. 22, but unfortunately life (both in and outside the game) intervened.

Considering you had the time to co-author an entire Omnibus proposal based on the premise there is no other debate or discussion occurring, and thus let’s hurry up and end the GC, I’m unsure how you didn’t have time to provide comments to this proposal (a comparatively far smaller task) in the intervening three weeks.

Nevertheless, let’s hear your comments.

You know, I think not. Given your and Pronoun’s attitudes throughout, I don’t think it’s worth the effort to engage with either of you anymore.

My “attitude throughout”? Yeah, ya know, the part where I wrote the early proposals in the GC and continued to engage with drafts as my schedule allowed, can you explain the issue with my “attitude” throughout this?

Maybe instead there is a genuine miscommunication. From my understanding, you and Henn forwarded an Omnibus under the mantra of simplifying government, with the belief that the Assembly could then pass laws to further “fill out” the structure of the government. My belief is I’d rather move more of the discussions we’ve already started forwards to conclusion rather than passing the most barebones possible version of the Charter and laws. That includes drafting and debating the Judicial Act and several other proposals here.

Seeing as it’s already at vote, there’s little point to mention it, but I dislike the minimum requirement for justices on the Court. We had a similar discussion about members of the body that approves voter registration, and elected to not put a lower threshold we had to meet that might have resulted in unqualified candidates being nominated.