I'm rather against this act as it is. Mostly because of the required three day waiting period before the court can even respond to a case. Also the wording is clearly copy/pasted from the Criminal Code, as it uses the term 'conduct a ruling' when using the term 'conduct' makes little sense in this case.
That waiting period is the same as in criminal procedures act, which is why it is there.
Additionally, the court is required to give a ruling in 60 days after the court agrees to consider a petition,
Then what time would be appropriate, as this is 60 days
after a petition has been accepted by the Court.
but does not consider any issue that could arise within that time frame. For example, what if the court is unable to rule because we don't have enough justices?
The court can rule with two or three justices, as it has been so far on constitutional cases, and even a full court is no guarantee that a decision may be reached.
In that instance the singular Justice would legally be violating the law, and thus potentially be committing a crime
Two justices are required to take up a case to be able to rule on it, so they'd be violating the mandate if they tried to rule with less than two justices, well before this act comes into play.
this act provides the court no leeway so that, should this pass, the court would be forced to follow these procedures for this specific exercise of its power
It has far fewer procedural requirements than the Criminal Procedures act, and only sets a time limit. All that is laid out in this act the Court can already do, including the part about the non-binding recommendation.
Just like the Criminal Procedures Act, this shouldn't be assumed to deny the Court the ability to set additional procedures and rules.