[Discussion] Court Nominees Question Thread

[Roavin]

Are you comfortable with Mandate 12 (Article V, Section 3) requiring that the Court's procedures be defined by law, or do you think that should be amended? If the latter, how do you think the Court's procedures should be defined?

I think that's fine, and really, it's an option that leaves all doors open. The Assembly can choose to regulate the Court in meticulous detail, or just grant the justices wide sweeping discretionary powers, or anything in between. It may have been easier for the initial period to rephrase it as "may be defined by law" rather than "will be defined by law" so that the justices can set their own procedures in absence of procedures given by the assembly (similar to how the Speaker set procedures in place while there were none defined by law), but I don't see that as a huge issue.

On a related note, do any of the three of you plan to put forward Court procedures to be defined by law? Not that I think you necessarily should (or shouldn't), I'm just wondering because so far we haven't seen any movement from anyone to do that.

We haven't talked about it, though I had it in the back of my mind — and I'm sure Sheepshape did as well. Since we both are principal authors of court procedures in active use by feeders, it's probably a good idea if we get the process going by sharing our experience in the matter and recalling what has worked and what hasn't (though, to be fair, the court procedures I wrote for TSP have only been enacted for a few months, while Sheepshape's have been in place for several years), and then have everyone hash it out together in the Assembly.

Though you didn't ask it, I'll answer the question what kind of procedures I think should exist . I generally favor sensible discretionary powers over strict regulation of all details, and non-adversarial systems in which justices can and will ask questions and specifically request (and even compel) the evidence they need to make the best possible ruling.

Do you think the Court should have jurisdiction over criminal matters or are you comfortable with the process established by Article II, Section 6 of Mandate 12?

There are advantages to both. Article II Section 6 is a very fast process; having the Court handle it is a slower, though more thorough process. I argue, however, that we can have our cake and can eat it, too, in the following fashion: The Delegate, or any citizen, can request that the Court investigates whether or not a criminal action occurred by asking a legal question about it (Article V, Section 6). The Court, operating in a non-adversarial manner, would initiate a thorough investigation to determine whether or not they consider the accused guilty according to whatever standard of evidence is required ("clear and convincing evidence" is what TSP uses, for example). The Delegate can then use the result of the Court's investigation to impose a ban, or to revoke a ban, or to do nothing, while still having the fast route of doing it directly when necessary.

(That does require an established criminal code, of course)