Apolytonian Court: Number of Judges

Jon Shafer · July 8, 2002, 19:06

Unofficial (I'm going to compile all the results from the polls and combine them into an official amendment).

4 Days.

This isn't official, so just read the question, and it'll be obvious, I don't feel like explaining.

Apocalypse · July 8, 2002, 19:15

I guess we both say five.

notyoueither · July 8, 2002, 19:17

5. Quorum of 3. Allows for absences due to the calling of the gods (life).

Side that the Senior judge votes on wins in ties. BTW, premature perhaps but, record of which judge voted which way (and why if he/she so wishes) should be made public.

notyoueither · July 8, 2002, 19:19

BTW. Quorum means that is the minimum number required to decide an issue. 3 or 4 or 5 (if all are around) can decide, but not 1 or 2.

Aggie · July 8, 2002, 19:59

I say 5 judges but only 3 on any issue. There should be 2 alternates, that should only serve if one of the main 3 can not. These should also be defined as permanent alternates, that way we get the 3 main judges usually. I fear that if you get differnent judges too often, you'll have 2 main problems.
1) People waiting to file or bring an issue before the court again and again hoping to overturn a previous decision.
2) If the court overturns itself over and over.
The way I have it, we will have the same judiciary most of the whole term with very few exceptions.
Also may i suggest injunction power. Example a minister is talking about doing something that is questionable during the turn chat. A person could pm a judge and get him to issue an injuction until the situation can be discussed.

LordImpact · July 8, 2002, 20:02

5 judges. Three on a trial at a time. 1 senior judge who sits in on all trials. the other 4 rotate, just to mix it up a little.

notyoueither · July 8, 2002, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
I say 5 judges but only 3 on any issue. There should be 2 alternates, that should only serve if one of the main 3 can not. These should also be defined as permanent alternates, that way we get the 3 main judges usually. I fear that if you get differnent judges too often, you'll have 2 main problems.
1) People waiting to file or bring an issue before the court again and again hoping to overturn a previous decision.
2) If the court overturns itself over and over.
The way I have it, we will have the same judiciary most of the whole term with very few exceptions.
Also may i suggest injunction power. Example a minister is talking about doing something that is questionable during the turn chat. A person could pm a judge and get him to issue an injuction until the situation can be discussed.

Oh, oh. These haven't come up before...

Is the court required to hear a complaint? Or can they say, go away... we decided that last week and not enough has changed to merit a new hearing. I think they must be able to reject complaints without hearing as baseless or capricious. Otherwise they could be over run with frivoloity.

Injunctions... do you mean that in some cases the entire game stops so they can decide if that declaration of war is constitutional? If that is the case, should the president have the absolute and unfettered right to continue with the game while not performing the injuncted action? ie, we can get on with it if the president feels the issue is not critical.

Sheik · July 8, 2002, 22:29

I think the court shouldn't be required to hear a complaint. They should have to read through all complaints and think about them first though before throwing them out and they should have to provide a reason for throwing the complaint out.

Sheik · July 8, 2002, 22:30

Quote:

Originally posted by LordImpact
5 judges. Three on a trial at a time. 1 senior judge who sits in on all trials. the other 4 rotate, just to mix it up a little.

I like this idea. That way we don't have to worry about absence as much.

Captain · July 8, 2002, 22:59

5 judges.
Quorum of 3.

Presiding judges based on random selection from pool of available judges.

No permanent senior judge.
Temporary senior judge per case, by randomness or deference by the other 2 judges.

If caseload grows too much, add more judges to the pool.

Robber Baron · July 8, 2002, 23:02

Yeah, 5, with 3 making up a quorum.
(Is there an echo in here?)

LordImpact · July 8, 2002, 23:09

I liked the idea of a senior judge because there would always be one person who would lead the trial, summarize it in a thread, and make the poll. He would also keep any and all records of the trials for later review if necessary. If the senior judge was not available, he would appoint a temporary sustitute.

Sheik · July 9, 2002, 00:19

I also like the idea of a senior judge. The Senior Judge wouldn't have any more power than any other judges but could also write a decision at the end of the case.

notyoueither · July 9, 2002, 00:51

Senior (or presiding) judge could be in rotation. 1 through 5 and then 1 through 5 again. In absenses, the next number comes up. They can draw lots for number, or go in order of joining the court.

There is no guarantee that a single senior judge would always be available.

LordImpact · July 9, 2002, 00:56

If the senior judge position lasted one month and then rotated I would agree to that.

--Impact

notyoueither · July 9, 2002, 01:01

Unfortunately LordImpact, life intrudes sometimes. Say there is a death in the family, or a crisis at work...

A simple mechanism that provides for there always being a tie breaker in the case of 4 judges is all that is required.

LordImpact · July 9, 2002, 01:04

I petitioned for a single constant senior judge for the purpose of keeping records, posting polls, and making court reports. There would be some seniority in the court so when the senior judge is away his second would take over.

edit: But we can see what everyone else thinks. A position of court secretary could be created as an alternative

--Impact

notyoueither · July 9, 2002, 01:06

Could revolve on the 1 through 5 basis for 1 month at a time, with the next number coming up in cases of absense, and the next... and at that point we lack a quorum.

That would be simple enough.

LordImpact · July 9, 2002, 01:10

That sounds reasonable to me.

--Impact

MrWhereItsAt · July 9, 2002, 10:11

Since the senior judge has no power over the others, why couldn't the judges just name such a "senior" when they meet? That way, even if there were only three that were NOT expected to attend, there would still be such a record-keeper. Why even bother with an appointment to a "position" that has no extra power? Surely we can expect ANY judge to be responsible enough for such a task.

Sheik · July 9, 2002, 11:08

I like MrWhereItsAt's idea. I am sure the judges can act like adults and choose someone to run the trial. That way a judge could be absent for awhile and there would be no problem. Having five judges is a good idea that way two could be gone for awhile and we would still have three to cover for them.

mtgillespie · July 9, 2002, 11:52

Why not just say 3 judges sit on each issue? Then you can adjust the total numbers without an amendment, you always have an odd number making decisions, and you always have cover if people are away. You can start with 5 total, for the first issue they deal with judges a,b and c sit, for the next it's d,e and a, and so on. If people aren't available, they just skip their turn. If the workload gets big, you can move to 6,7,8.....n in total. Hopefully, we won't need more than 5, but this way we won't need to predict numbers, or always have an odd number.

MrWhereItsAt · July 9, 2002, 12:04

I agree, mtgillespie. The only point of a "senior" judge is to be someone to fulfill the responsibilities of writing any reports for the people, posting polls and reporting to Ministers. All Judges are equal, just that one must perform these clerical duties.

jdjdjd · July 9, 2002, 12:23

I'm not sure what kinds of disputes everyone is envisioning, but my guess is the court will not be all that busy. There are no criminal cases (unless someone is being impeached from office), there are no civil cases, the court is like the US Supreme Court, where they decide issues only on interpretation of the constituion. Or at least thats what I thought was being talked about. There should not be that many disputes of the constitution on there should not be that much impeachment, or did I miss something?

5 is a good number, three can decide an issue, but I think the 5 judges should work out their day to day handling of matters, i.e. what is a quorum, how many judges must decide a case, when they hear cases, how, etc.

Finally, one Chief Justice is necessary, to coordinate the hearings, call the court into session, receive copies of complaints. But, since no one is around all the time, he can appoint a back up, or something like that...But again, I think once the court is created they should hash out their rules. we want them to act as independently as possible.

MrWhereItsAt · July 9, 2002, 12:27

As with many of this game's amendments, it is just another check in the event of a worst case scenario.

Very likely never needed, but people think it is necessary, so we must implement it, but we don't need to overlegislate this soon-to-be-rarely-used addition.

LordImpact · July 9, 2002, 12:33

hmmm interesting idea jdjdjd. I kinda like it. Prehaps we should let the court decide on its own set up. They would certainly know what would work better than the general population.

--Impact