Let’s use this space to discuss our views about each applicant and their qualifications.
I’m not overly impressed by Maluhia’s responses. Yet again the Moot court section is very poor, with no actual references to the laws to justify his conclusions - this remain a recurring theme and I think we need to make it explicit that we require them to explain the legal basis of any ruling they might make.
I generally concur with Bel’s assessment. I think many of the applicants recently are of the opinion or impression that they do not need to provide a substantial response/mock opinion. This could stem from a bit of survey fatigue. Several written responses in a row will undoubtedly make the average person want to be done with the application right as they get to the most important part of it: the mock case.
To me, what gives Maluhia a favorable light towards their appointment is that I think their activity level and recent contributions to the region indicate potential longevity in the position should they be appointed.
If we sought to clarify anything else from their application (aside from the expansion of their mock case submission), I would like to see clarification on how much (and what) they actually did in their position as Attorney General of Port Elizabeth since, by their own statement, the position was abolished for being unnecessary.
I have updated the document with Pronoun’s answer. My knee jerk reaction is that Maluhia really stumbled in the moot court section, but Pronoun really came through. I would rate Pronoun as well qualified, but I’d like to hear what you both think.
Also, would this be a desirable rework on the survey for future applicants?
Type in your forum username.
Provide a list of all your current affiliations and offices in NationStates, including any legal or judicial experience that you may have.
What steps should a judge take to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of one?
What role should public opinion or personal relationships play in the way a judge rules on a case?
What roles should the letter and the spirit of the law play in judicial interpretation?
What roles should judicial precedent, amicus briefs, and unwritten sources of law play in judicial interpretation?
Moot Legal Question.
Moot Criminal Complaint.
Pronoun’s new answers are excellent, and combined with the rest of the survey definitely indicate that he is qualified and possibly well qualified.
I think that looks like a more manageable number of questions and should hopefully mean we get more substantial answers to the last two questions.
Pronoun’s application was refreshing to read. I would definitely rate them as well-qualified for a seat on the Court. Their moot court response was [chefs kiss] wonderful and thoroughly ground in a well-reasoned response as well as proper references to regional laws and past Court decisions.
As far as the new questionnaire goes, I echo Bel’s comments. I think that also putting the Moot Court first would help facilitate more thorough responses as the survey fatigue will not have set in as quickly.
Do we want to ask Maluhia to clarify their answers to the moot court section, or are we comfortable enough with what we have so far to draft our opinions? Personally I’m good, but I’m happy to follow through with Maluhia if either of you think we should do that.
Just to ensure we do choose the best candidate possible, I would like to see if Maluhia would like to clarify their answers and expand upon the moot court section.
I agree - I think it’s reasonable to give Maluhia a second chance.
Bringing the spotlight back onto this, did we get a response from Maluhia?
Apologies, I haven’t messaged them yet. It turns out being assigned 4 audits at once takes a toll. I’ll message them this week, so that we can move along with this process ASAP.
I sent a message to Maluhia, which should be available to you all via the Court inbox.
I have added Maluhia’s responses to the filed linked above, titled as “Further Responses”. My view is that the answers do not improve much upon the original submission, and that Maluhia did not properly show their judicial reasoning in the moot court section. I can see their rulings, but I don’t necessarily understand why they ruled that way, or what laws or precedent justify it.
Agreed. I also don’t think Maluhia actually understood what you were asking them to do, which isn’t promising. They seem to have interpreted “Consider your answers to the moot court section as if you were already on the bench and drafting an official response on behalf of the Court” as meaning we wanted him to use the Court’s formatting, not that we wanted him to tell us which law he was ruling and why he was ruling that way.
My proposal, based on their response, would be to rate Pronoun as Well Qualified and Maluhia as Not Qualified. This doesn’t mean that Maluhia cannot ever be qualified, if they put in the work, but at this point in time I don’t see them meeting the mark.
I concur with that assessment.
Maluhia’s follow-up answers actually seemed to be a bit counter-productive for them. I would have rated them, at the very most, qualified (albeit barely) before the answers, but now I’d have to say they fell into the unqualified category.
Pronoun, I would definitely say, is qualified, if not highly qualified. I look forward to hopefully having them on the bench in the near future.
Agreed.
Apologies for the long delay. I have updated the document with a draft opinion on each applicant. Please let me know if you approve or have any concerns, before I can forward it to the Prime Minister.
Looks fine to me.
I concur. Looks good.