Discussion [Discussion] Court Disciplinary Measures Amendment

[New Rogernomics]

Court Disciplinary Measures Amendment

Proposed by: @New Rogernomics​

Preamble

An amendment to provide for disciplinary measures against Court Justices that display poor conduct.

Section 1. Amendment to Section 5 of the Mandate

Section 5 of the mandate shall be amended to include disciplinary measures:

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. While serving, Justices may not serve in any other office but Councillor of Council on Lazarene Security, Vice Delegate, or Deputy Minister.

Powers of the Court

(3) Procedure for constitutional matters brought before the Court will be defined by law.

(4) The Court has the power, upon being petitioned by a citizen, to strike down any general law, treaty, or policy. in whole or in part, and restrain any government action, by two-thirds vote, if such violates this Mandate or any constitutional law.

(5) The Court may, upon being petitioned by a citizen, reconcile contradictions within and between this Mandate and constitutional laws, as well as contradictions within and between general laws, by two-thirds vote, maintaining minimal disruption to the intended purposes of the contradictory provisions.

(6) The Court may interpret and clarify provisions of law when posed in a legal question, by two-thirds vote, as prescribed by law.

(7) The Court may, upon being petitioned by a citizen, conduct Criminal Reviews in order to determine whether a person has committed a criminal offence. During a Criminal Review the person must be granted reasonable opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. Procedure for such Criminal Reviews may be established by law.

(8) Should the Court confirm by two-thirds vote that the person has committed a criminal offence after a Criminal Review, they may compel the Delegate to impose upon the person a punishment permitted by law, including revocation of citizenship, restriction of ability to vote and/or hold office, ejection and/or banishment from Lazarus and other measures. The Court may hold a Criminal Review appeal to reduce or overturn punishments decided in a Criminal Review. The Assembly may overturn or reduce such punishments by three-quarters vote.

Disciplinary Measures

(9) The Court may, upon being petitioned by a citizen, conduct a disciplinary hearing of a Court Justice, to discipline them for breaches of conduct, as established by law and by the procedural rules of the Court.

Decided to trim it down.

Past version:

Spoiler: Spoiler

Court Disciplinary Measures Amendment

Proposed by: @New Rogernomics​

Preamble

An amendment to provide for disciplinary measures against Court Justices that display poor conduct.

Section 1. Amendment to Section 5 of the Mandate

Section 5 of the mandate shall be amended to include disciplinary measures:

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. While serving, Justices may not serve in any other office but Councillor of Council on Lazarene Security, Vice Delegate, or Deputy Minister.

Powers of the Court

(3) Procedure for constitutional matters brought before the Court will be defined by law.

(4) The Court has the power, upon being petitioned by a citizen, to strike down any general law, treaty, or policy. in whole or in part, and restrain any government action, by two-thirds vote, if such violates this Mandate or any constitutional law.

(5) The Court may, upon being petitioned by a citizen, reconcile contradictions within and between this Mandate and constitutional laws, as well as contradictions within and between general laws, by two-thirds vote, maintaining minimal disruption to the intended purposes of the contradictory provisions.

(6) The Court may interpret and clarify provisions of law when posed in a legal question, by two-thirds vote, as prescribed by law.

(7) The Court may, upon being petitioned by a citizen, conduct Criminal Reviews in order to determine whether a person has committed a criminal offence. During a Criminal Review the person must be granted reasonable opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. Procedure for such Criminal Reviews may be established by law.

(8) Should the Court confirm by two-thirds vote that the person has committed a criminal offence after a Criminal Review, they may compel the Delegate to impose upon the person a punishment permitted by law, including revocation of citizenship, restriction of ability to vote and/or hold office, ejection and/or banishment from Lazarus and other measures. The Court may hold a Criminal Review appeal to reduce or overturn punishments decided in a Criminal Review. The Assembly may overturn or reduce such punishments by three-quarters vote.

Disciplinary Measures

(9) The Court may, upon being petitioned by a citizen, conduct a disciplinary hearing of a Court Justice by two-thirds vote, to discipline them for breaches of conduct, as established by law and the procedural rules of the Court. The Court Justice that is subject to a disciplinary hearing may not vote in their own disciplinary hearing. Disciplinary measures may include restrictions on what matters the Court Justice may rule upon.
This will be an amendment to the Court portion of the mandate to cover what I think is a general issue, something in-between a recall of a Court Justice, and a CLS ban of a Court Justice, the last of which is a really extreme step to make.

Discussion: If anyone feels that a Court Justice is displaying poor conduct, they can petition the Court to discipline the Court Justice in question, and this amendment gives enough flexibility that the Court can dismiss frivolous petitions.

If as a result of the disciplinary hearing by two-thirds vote, the Court decides to discipline a Court Justice, then the Court Justice can be restricted on what matters they may rule upon.

In the future, the Court or the Assembly can define what breaches of conduct should imply, as the goal is not to restrict the Court on what they might consider poor conduct amongst their number or the amount of time such a restriction should last for.

 

[Leonism]

Wouldn't this create a kind of "lame duck" Court Justice? Would a disciplined Justice really stay on the Court for long, their reputation having been tarnished. Also, we have three justices normally, right?

So a two-thirds majority where they subject in question cannot vote upon would basically mean the two remaining judges have to agree on sanctioning their colleague?

 

[New Rogernomics]

Wouldn't this create a kind of "lame duck" Court Justice? Would a disciplined Justice really stay on the Court for long, their reputation having been tarnished. Also, we have three justices normally, right?

So a two-thirds majority where they subject in question cannot vote upon would basically mean the two remaining judges have to agree on sanctioning their colleague?

It depends on the extent of the restriction, as this would first of all be a breach of conduct that occured publicly and could be proven, and could be a minor situation like someone ruiling and accidentally making a conflict of interest to something more serious like abusing their position.

It is more important to ensure all Court Justices are doing the job that is required of them, have the same standards of their fellow Justices, and are held accountable for potential breaches of conduct, than ruffled fearhers. If someone was to leave the Court, on basis of a restriction, then it would damage their reputation to do so far more to leave in a huff than to stay on the Court and agree to respect the reasonable ethical standards set by the Court. It would also publicly settle ethical complaints that are unwarranted, and spread to sully the reputation of a Court Justice, and thus in many cases protect the reputation of the judiciary.

It would have to be voted on by the other Court Justices, as it must be a impartial vote and have the support of the remainder of Court. The Court has the experience and understanding of the law to interpret what is a breach of conduct, so they are more than capable of deciding what is fair as far as a restriction and what would unduly sully a reputation in their number.

I mention this is a mid-way between a recall and a ban, as it isn't to be taken lightly, but need not remove someone from the Court, as not all breaches warrant expulsion and mistakes do happen. The Court can decide what would merit a restriction on what a disciplined Court Justice may rule upon.

This could also be used as a measure prior to a recall vote to prevent that individual pursuing ruilings on matters they are in the process of being recalled for, if the Court feels that is necessary.

 

[McChimp]

I'm against this. The Assembly can recall justices if necessary. The process you have proposed seems easy to weaponise.

 

[New Rogernomics]

I'm against this. The Assembly can recall justices if necessary. The process you have proposed seems easy to weaponise.

It isn't easy to weaponize at all, as the Court can refuse to take up petitions, as it does with everything else, and decide its own rules to determine how the process operates, as implied by the following here:

The Court may, upon being petitioned by a citizen

as established by law and the procedural rules of the Court

 

[McChimp]

It isn't easy to weaponize at all, as the Court can refuse to take up petitions, as it does with everything else, and decide its own rules to determine how the process operates, as implied by the following here:

The fact that the court can choose not to take up a petition has no bearing on whether this procedure can be weaponised or not. One justice can use these powers to seize control of the court with the support of only one other citizen. This enables court shenanigans like those seen in the CU. There is a reason this kind of thing was omitted when the mandate was written.

The law does not provide any real benefit to make that great risk worth it. There is no way in which a Justice can be disciplined short of a recall that will not cast immense doubt on their ability to serve competently in this role at all. As such, there is no useful place for such displinary measures.

 

[New Rogernomics]

The fact that the court can choose not to take up a petition has no bearing on whether this procedure can be weaponised or not. One justice can use these powers to seize control of the court with the support of only one other citizen. This enables court shenanigans like those seen in the CU. There is a reason this kind of thing was omitted when the mandate was written.

The law does not provide any real benefit to make that great risk worth it. There is no way in which a Justice can be disciplined short of a recall that will not cast immense doubt on their ability to serve competently in this role at all. As such, there is no useful place for such displinary measures.

I'd argue that those extreme situations are best resolved by a recall, and that we can rely upon the Court to adequately discipline itself. I don't think the first move should be for a recall every time a Court Justice does a minor thing we might disagree with.

 

[McChimp]

I'd argue that those extreme situations are best resolved by a recall, and that we can rely upon the Court to adequately discipline itself. I don't think the first move should be for a recall every time a Court Justice does a minor thing we might disagree with.

I can't think of any infraction large enough not to be petty but small enough to deserve any kind of discipline short of a recall. A Justice is either competent or they are not. It would be unreasonable to allow a person we acknowledge is incompetent to continue serving as a justice. Your amendment makes no provision for the codification of such infractions, nor does it set any limits on what disciplinary measures may be imposed. You are trying to give justices nearly limitless powers to pursue each other with next to no consensus whatsoever.

 

[New Rogernomics]

I can't think of any infraction large enough not to be petty but small enough to deserve any kind of discipline short of a recall. A Justice is either competent or they are not. It would be unreasonable to allow a justice we acknowledge is incompetent to continue serving as a justice.

Like a major conflict of interest in a case, which should have been a point they recused themselves.

I've decided to trim it down though:

(9) The Court may, upon being petitioned by a citizen, conduct a disciplinary hearing of a Court Justice, to discipline them for breaches of conduct, as established by law and by the procedural rules of the Court.

 

[McChimp]

Like a major conflict of interest in a case, which should have been a point they recused themselves.

I've decided to trim it down though:

A justice who does not recuse themselves from a case in which they have a conflict of interest needs to be recalled.

 

[New Rogernomics]

A justice who does not recuse themselves from a case in which they have a conflict of itnerest needs to be recalled.

That can be an easy mistake to make that is resolved by discipline within the Court itself, so I don't see the need for a recall for all instances that occurs.

I'd argue recalls shouldn't be the go-to for every issue with the Court, as we have it set up now.

If Shareholders have the right to petition the Court on an issue where they feel they were treated unfairly or where a Court Justice may have done something out of line, then that is regular accountability of the judiciary.

This would make a recall far less necessary, and make it far less of a go-to.