Removal of Restrictions for Judicial Appointments

[Killer Kitty]

V. Court of Lazarus

Composition of the Court

(1) The Court will be comprised of three Justices appointed by the Delegate, subject to confirmation by 50%+1 vote of the Assembly. Requirements for the recusal of Justices and procedure for the appointment of temporary Justices may be established by law.

(2) Justices will serve until resignation, removal from office by the Assembly, or automatic removal from office. Justices may not serve in any other office while serving as Justices.

 

[whatermelons]

Immense FOR

 

[joWhatup]

My full support. We have been struggling to find active judges for ages since time immemorial (meaning as long as I can remember). I think this would certainly help.

 

[McChimp]

Seems fair enough.

Are you going to format it like other amendments?

 

[Wymondham]

Full Support

 

[Roavin]

The way TSP does it is that the Chief Justice is firewalled, but the other justices aren't. I feel like that'd be a model that could work well here, though I'd be supportive of this change as-is as well.

 

[Domais]

I support this

 

[Demonos]

this proposal for the following reasons;

1) Serving in a dual capacity as a Justice and any other appointed or executive position allows for a conflict of interest between the Executive and Judiciary powers of Lazarus. This would give the holder of the double office greater power and influence over decisions that single holder officers would not have. The very concept that an officer of LazCorp can serve in such a dual role ideally and unethically doubles their power. Abuse of power will not be a question of 'what if'when will it'or "That is the very definition of corruption.

Our recommendation is to appoint some damn Justices already instead of coveting that power for yourselves!

 

[joWhatup]

Our recommendation is to appoint some damn Justices already instead of coveting that power for yourselves!

 

[Demonos]

@joWhatup

With all due respect, you can not fix a problem by creating another problem in its wake. Even KK admits that there would be a conflict of interest by stating, "...while still minimizing must appoint other people to the judiciary that do not hold office in either the Assembly, the Cabinet, or the Council of Lazarene Security. Recruiting from those branches further gives privileged information to a Justice that she/he would not be privy to should they have been separate from that branch. The threat of having privileged information may aid or hinder prosecution or defense leading to an unfair, unethical, and unjust trial. At that point, why have a judiciary? The problem isn't that you can't find anyone. The problem is that you can not find anyone that you trust aligns completely with all of your beliefs. Do not use the excuse of "qualifications" either. A Justice should sit en banc during trial anyway, three heads are better than one and way better qualified than how the courts have been currently running i.e. outside mandated judicial procedure. (No offense to Wymondham whose opinions I highly respect and who has labored greatly in the name of justice). It isn't like the assembly can't remove them anyway should their performance be counter to justice.

 

[Domais]

As in accordance to Section 2 point 2 of the Assembly Procedure Act, I motion this to vote.

 

[Demonos]

Without a second and the passage of eight days this proposal should be dead.

 

[Deleted1]

It isn't dead, lacks a second, and there is confusion given the author is gone. I suggest, if KK isn't to return in 3 days, that someone else start a thread with the same proposal.

 

[Demonos]

This proposal is shit. LET IT DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Demonos]

OH! Excuse me, this proposal is a pile of manure that needs to die.

 

[Demonos]

Please withdraw this proposal.

 

[temmi]

I am late to the party, but I figured I'd voice my concerns here since the other thread doesn't contain any actual discussion on this proposal. This might be too late, given we're well past the start of voting, but oh well...

The only reasons that have been presented to justify this are that we don't have enough qualified people to choose from for these positions. If we don't have enough people who are active and informed, then shouldn't we be focusing our energy on addressing that issue instead of cutting corners with our legislation to make it easier on us?

Allowing our justices to hold multiple other positions can be dangerous and has a chance at establishing a judiciary that makes rulings that are favorable to their other positions. We won't ever be able to guarantee a completely unbiased judiciary, but we can certainly take steps to make sure it is operating as a body that works in the region's best interest and not in the interest of those who are appointed to it. I don't think the reasons that have been brought in favor of this are sufficient enough to warrant the potential dangers that can arise from the changes presented here. I would encourage the officials of LazCorp to address the overarching problem of activity and engagement directly so that we do have people to fulfill these seats and our other positions.

I would encourage other Shareholders to vote Nay on this proposal, so that we can begin working together to address the cause that lead us to this instead of trying to quick-fix a symptom.

 

[Frankender]

I motion to table this legislation due to never receiving a second and inactivity since then.