Apolytonian Court: Term Limits

Jon Shafer · July 8, 2002, 19:08

Same as the other poll. Unofficial.

Apocalypse · July 8, 2002, 19:20

Unlimited terms. The court is important so the best people should be able to stay in.

notyoueither · July 8, 2002, 19:24

I would prefer no limits, exactly for the reason stated by Apocalypse.

Failing that, 3 month terms limited to 3 terms in a row would be good.

BTW Trip. You didn't state groups. You may notice a slight imbalance in votes cast.

Jon Shafer · July 8, 2002, 19:25

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
I would prefer no limits, exactly for the reason stated by Apocalypse.

Failing that, 3 month terms limited to 3 terms in a row would be good.

BTW Trip. You didn't state groups. You may notice a slight imbalance in votes cast.

It's unofficial, so I can take the results however I want when I draft the real amendment.

It's just for info gathering... seeing what people like the most.

Apocalypse · July 8, 2002, 19:30

The thing is, with the people who get elected to various ministry positions, who it is won't change all that much. The judges will have a chance at really affecting the game. This is why if a judge is really good, he or she should not be forced to leave.

Jon Shafer · July 8, 2002, 19:31

3 Month terms and I doubt anyone would serve more than 1 anyways (or a half).

notyoueither · July 8, 2002, 19:41

It would depend on the workload. If it were the case of the day sort of thing you are right, they would frazzle quickly.

I suspect though that the load would be very light. You could very well have Oliver Wendell Holmes snoozing on the bench from 2000 bc to 2000 ad. Dust him off when you turn the lights out, would you.

Apocalypse · July 8, 2002, 19:59

The workload is light. If I don't get elected VP, I'd find a judge position a great place to defend the citizens against an government-turned-tyranny.

LordImpact · July 8, 2002, 20:15

If we can get good, hard working, honest, un-biased people the first time around then theres no reason why we shouldn't hold on to them throughout the entire game. As the game progresses, I have a feeling more political parties are going to emerge and the split on policy will widen. It's better to choose now while everyones pretty much in agreement.

--Impact

MrWhereItsAt · July 9, 2002, 09:53

If one serves with distinction, one should be awarded the right to continue. No limits. But how are they chosen? Monthly via election? Or via appointment? This is the greatest question.

Apoc: is your post a subtle hint? Do you perhaps want to declare your candidcay for a Justice?

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 09:58

Being the devil's advocate, I pose this question to everyone: if Ministers can't have unlimited (consecutive) terms, then why should judges? They both have some degree of power, and what we were trying to is prevent ministers from being corrupted by power... why won't this be the case for judges too?

MrWhereItsAt · July 9, 2002, 10:59

Being the rebuttal to the Devil's advocate (isn't this roleplaying **** great?), it is the people who bring cases before Judges. If no cases are brought forth, Judges do nothing and thus have no power. Conclusion: the only power given to Judges is via the people, a case at a time, and therefore there should be no problem with corruption due to power.

disorganizer · July 9, 2002, 11:14

i think no limits should be good, but they should be called for reelection by a simply mayority citizen vote at ANY time, even in the middle of a term.

disorganizer · July 9, 2002, 11:15

and of course they must not be officials in any way. every office is excluded from election for judge and as long as a judge is in duty he must not be nominated for an office. he can of course anytime decide to leave his duty for being able to get nominated for an office.

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 11:35

I love role playing the Emperor... (oh wait, I'm not role playing that...

)

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
it is the people who bring cases before Judges. If no cases are brought forth, Judges do nothing and thus have no power. Conclusion: the only power given to Judges is via the people, a case at a time, and therefore there should be no problem with corruption due to power.

So then they get some radical out of our population of 250 and has them bring forward a case.

I think that if a judge really wanted to get something done, he could find someone to help him get it done.

MrWhereItsAt · July 9, 2002, 12:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
I love role playing the Emperor... (oh wait, I'm not role playing that...

)

So then they get some radical out of our population of 250 and has them bring forward a case.

I think that if a judge really wanted to get something done, he could find someone to help him get it done.

So here the trust issue rears its ugly head again...

How much do we trust our elected reps and our citizens? Certainly anyone who is elected must be trusted to make decisions, and these decisions include apointments to positions of little power such as the Judges' (should be).

If we don't expect our elected reps to make such decisions, why do we have Ministers at all? In that case, we could run everything by an enormous, open, inefficient, useless committee.

Anyway, Judges' jobs should be little more than critical analysis of Ministers' behaviours (in the EXTREMELY rare event that they are questionable). It is as if we need to have Ministers' assistants and Ambassadors denied from seeking a second term - the only reason to do so is if there others who wanted a go. Give the option of having someone be a Judge in perpetuity. It most likely won't happen - it only would due to Presidential and Ministerial allowance, or via continuous approval by the people.

Think about it. If someone was doing a good job, after a few terms they wouldn't be allowed to be re-elected, even with popular support. And sometimed this would mean that some less than desirable candidates might HAVE to be put into the position. Allow this flexibility, but it shouldn't be needed.

jdjdjd · July 9, 2002, 13:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
Being the devil's advocate, I pose this question to everyone: if Ministers can't have unlimited (consecutive) terms, then why should judges? They both have some degree of power, and what we were trying to is prevent ministers from being corrupted by power... why won't this be the case for judges too?

To keep politics out of the court, you can not have them worry about running again and again, or to keep their party happy and making decisions based on that and not on their own opinions. Its a way to keep the court independent of any party politics. This seems to have been the theme from many in the prior thread discussing voting on this amendment, is that the court had to make decisions based on their own opinions and not what their party or the general populace thought.

It does not lead to excessive power, for the reason pointed out by Mr. WhereitsAt, i.e., they do not bring forth the cases that come under their jurisdiction, in fact they have none if no one felt their was a reason to present a case to them

I look at the example of the US Supreme Court, they remain uneffected by party politics. Many times conservative judges before hand, became liberal justices on the SC, or visa-versa, because they could vote their conscience and had no outside influence on them. Additionally, the SC does not exert a great amount of power or influence, in fact they are probably the weaker of the three branches.

Finally, you have to restrict the possibility that they gain excessive power, i.e., they should not be able to post on threads having to do with campaigns, elections, polls or amendments. They should be asked to leave their political party (if they have one). Maybe they shouldn't even be allowed in a turn chat.

Sorry for going on, I just have a highly formed opinion of how this court should be set up.

jdjdjd · July 9, 2002, 13:47

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt

Think about it. If someone was doing a good job, after a few terms they wouldn't be allowed to be re-elected, even with popular support. And sometimed this would mean that some less than desirable candidates might HAVE to be put into the position. Allow this flexibility, but it shouldn't be needed.

Just to reemphasize a point, a judge should do what he deems to be correct based on the constitution and the arguments presented, not by what is popular or what is politically expedient.
In order to protect the constitution, the minority, and the general theme of democracy, somone uninfluence by politics and the popular will must be available as a potential counter balance, and the best way to get this is the court.

Spiffor · July 10, 2002, 05:40

Unlimited. I don't see why we should restrict people from getting elected, if the majority of citizens support them (this goes for all posts). This logic really escapes me, even in the real world.