Posts: 454
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2018
11-01-2019, 05:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-01-2019, 05:13 PM by McChimp.)
Zapatian Workers State;7255 Wrote:Stupid me, I jumped over the final article of the proposition for some reason. I see your rationale against having an attorney-general and find it valid. My only remaining question concerns the terminology. Why not just use "Plaintiff" and "Defendant" since those will likely be the colloquially used terms anyway?
You've persuaded me about this. We've always strived to use real-life, relatable terminology in our laws. It would probably make more sense for this law to reference the plaintiff and the defendant as such and I'll edit the proposal to do so.
My instinct is that we shouldn't allow foreigners to bring cases to court as a security measure and that diplomacy should always be handled by the government-either way, that's not a consequence of this bill.
Posts: 454
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2018
Zapatian Workers State;7283 Wrote:McChimp;7261 Wrote:My instinct is that we shouldn't allow foreigners to bring cases to court as a security measure and that diplomacy should always be handled by the government-either way, that's not a consequence of this bill.
Can you explain why you think that giving foreigners the ability to bring cases forth presents a security risk?
It's not exactly a mortal risk but it certainly presents an opportunity for nuisance. Why would we want to create a tool for outsiders to harass our citizens?
Again I must stress that this bill does not and could not affect this question.
Posts: 454
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2018
