Discussion Lets Discuss: Powers of the Delegate

[Constie]

I am firmly against any such proposal that would see justices being nominated by a political body. The courts strength and legitimacy lies in the fact that it is nominated from above the political fray, allowing the PM or any political body to nominate justices would sully the court and drag it through the political muck. Such a process would irrevocably damage the courts reputation for impartiality and seriously harm it's legitimacy

I firmly disagree with this, otherwise every confirmation would have compromised the impartiality of the court. Everyone keeps forgetting the critical step that, no matter what, the assembly has a say in who gets on the court. The roles can already be made political by those who have enough will go step into the assembly and make them political. Which is why the Delegate should not be dragged down into the mat process. The delegate must be protected from the political sphere

 

[Apatosaurus]

I disagree on the former as the PM is an overwhelmingly political position, and they could stack the court with their political favorites. The PM has too much power already, so allowing them to appoint the people who are meant to holding them to account would be a bad idea. In NS and RL, mixing the political executive with the judicial branch, hypothetically creates loyalty to a political individual and not the region, or alternatively creates Justices who are desperate to not appear like they favor one PM or the other and over-compensate as a result.

If we are going to hypothetically have political appointments of Court Justices, I would prefer we just hold elections for those roles instead of making the PM into an all-powerful role that appoints everyone in the region, including the folks meant to hold them and their legislative agenda to account.

Agreed, I think appointing the Court by an apolitical position like Delegate is best, or alternatively consensus of the CRS or just elections in the case of a resignation or such.

Speaker elections do exist in other regions, though in our case it would complicate how Deputy Speakers would be appointed. Elections would determine the Speaker, so if someone resigned the Deputy couldn't take over temporarily, unless expressively legislated to allow for that. Electing Deputy Speakers might be better than than electing the Speaker, and changing the Delegate appointing the Speaker, isn't necessary, if the only pool they can pick from is elected Deputies.

... No. That's too complicated, in my opinion at least. I think what would work best would be a complete rehaul of the Speakership such that it is elected using fixed terms, and the Delegate can temporarily appoint someone to act as Speaker in the case of a resignation (as relying on Deputies micromanages, especially if there are no Deputies).

 

[Apatosaurus]

I agree with this and extend this thinking to the Speaker.

Okay, I disagree here. As one of the most avid democrats you'll find in Lazarus (probably ) I think that the Assembly should get to decide who gets to run them. If there's a rogue Speaker, unlike Justices they do not have the power to ban members that they politically disagree with, or even unilaterally change the law (as a majority of the Assembly is needed for this). In my opinion, the worst a rogue Speaker can do through IC powers granted by their position is blocking legislation they disagree with, which is largely reversible after the rogue Speaker leaves office (obviously something that can be done through a recall or even casually being dismissed by the Delegate).

 

[Deleted1]

Okay, I disagree here. As one of the most avid democrats you'll find in Lazarus (probably ) I think that the Assembly should get to decide who gets to run them. If there's a rogue Speaker, unlike Justices they do not have the power to ban members that they politically disagree with, or even unilaterally change the law (as a majority of the Assembly is needed for this). In my opinion, the worst a rogue Speaker can do through IC powers granted by their position is blocking legislation they disagree with, which is largely reversible after the rogue Speaker leaves office (obviously something that can be done through a recall or even casually being dismissed by the Delegate).

Blocking legislation or upholding Assembly action would be something you should fight against if you want to maintain democracy in the region. The way things are now, you have all those remedies you listed as solutions.

 

[Apatosaurus]

Blocking legislation or upholding Assembly action would be something you should fight against if you want to maintain democracy in the region. The way things are now, you have all those remedies you listed as solutions.

Exactly. But the damage from that is entirely reversible, and if it happens the Delegate can literally just dismiss said rogue Speaker and things are largely back to normal. WIth a rogue Justice, the difference is that it is not that easy to reverse any damage.

EDIT: The point is that there is not as much of an issue with directly electing the Speaker as having elected Justices with terms etc. Any damage that occurs from a rogue speaker is easily reversible.

 

[Deleted1]

Exactly. But the damage from that is entirely reversible, and if it happens the Delegate can literally just dismiss said rogue Speaker and things are largely back to normal. WIth a rogue Justice, the difference is that it is not that easy to reverse any damage.

EDIT: The point is that there is not as much of an issue with directly electing the Speaker as having elected Justices with terms etc. Any damage that occurs from a rogue speaker is easily reversible.

Replied to this on discord.

 

[Deadeye Jack]

Not sure about electing justices.

I do think that the Assembly should be able to choose who runs it though via Election. Perhaps even a regular election instead of having it as an indefinite position.

 

[McChimp]

Firmly against any change to the appointment of our justices. It is best left in the Delegate's hands.

With respect to electing a Speaker, I don't think this would be successful or beneficial either. It's hard enough finding people to run for PM and people to vote for them, I don't think trying to do the same thing for a less lucrative role would work and it could also potentially create a voter fatigue issue.

On the whole I don't really see the appeal of stripping more powers from the Delegate-it's important to keep that role engaged with the regime. We already have the most liberal system of all the mechanical sinkers and I worry that the constitutional amendments people are proposing are too much.