Apolytonian Court: Everything Else

[Jon Shafer]

Try number 2, let's see if we can get this right.

[notyoueither]

Options 1 and 2. Both. They should be nominated by a vote of ministers (51% or 67%) and confirmed by public poll (51%). All of us are the senate (I think that was the consensus).

[notyoueither]

Options 3 and 4. Hmmm. At least censure leading to a poll on impeachment (51% to impeach after censure?). Remove on their own? I don't know about that. I think we need to discuss it. No vote.

Options 5 and 6. Yes, the court should go by both the constitution and by what has gone before (common law). Otherwise you give them little room to be sensical and in tune with the needs of the nation. For instance, the current history guys debate (of having 2 historians elected together) would be an automatic 'buzzz' sorry can't do that, because one person for one office is implicit in the constitution (I think). All it would take is one mischievous PM from a citizen.

If you allow them some commonsense and to listen to consensus (present and past) then they can make better decisions for more situations. Nobody can possibly dream up all the possible scenarios that may arise. Allow the court some latitude to do a good job.

[Jon Shafer]

5 voters, and yet 7 votes total for the top 2 options...
Come on people, one or the other.

I go for Options 1, 4 and 5.

[notyoueither]

Like I said. Both to 1 and 2.

Why just one or the other?

[Aggie]

IMHO judges should be nominated by the President and then approved of by the ministers. I could see, however, that approval by the people wouldn't be all that bad either.Though if it is by ministerial approval let me suggest a 2/3 vote and if it is by popular approval then 50%+1.
As far as impeachment i think my original plan where the judges could hold a trial on the act, but with no authority(other than giving ammunition and credence to the charge) to pursue the matter, is the best solution. Imagine a rogue court throwing people out, that could be horrible. Remember checks and balances also apply to courts.
Aggie

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Like I said. Both to 1 and 2.

Why just one or the other?

Because they mean the opposite from one another. Oh well, it doesn't matter.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Aggie
IMHO judges should be nominated by the President and then approved of by the ministers. I could see, however, that approval by the people wouldn't be all that bad either.Though if it is by ministerial approval let me suggest a 2/3 vote and if it is by popular approval then 50%+1.
As far as impeachment i think my original plan where the judges could hold a trial on the act, but with no authority(other than giving ammunition and credence to the charge) to pursue the matter, is the best solution. Imagine a rogue court throwing people out, that could be horrible. Remember checks and balances also apply to courts.
Aggie

I'm thinking along these lines entirely.

It would be fine if the president nominated, the ministers approved and the people confirmed.

[notyoueither]

BTW. Does the history guy(s) count as a minister(s)?

If 2 share the office, do they share the vote?

If you say they get 2, I say the first challenge will be to multiple people holding a single office.

[Jon Shafer]

1 vote per office. Therefore, they each get 1/2 vote.

[LordImpact]

I agree with Aggie and NYE 100%

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Election vs. appointment: IMHO, both of these opinions are undesirable. It's really a decision between having judges selected for either their popularity or their standing with the Prez.

I propose that we have a system similar to what the U.S. uses: the President gets to nominate the judges, but the people have to approve them (by a 60% majority). Also, the President would be required to make sure that half the judicial nominees he puts forward are not of his or her own party.

Impeachment vs. no impeachment: Should be allowed, but only for ministers (Presidential impeachment would be handled differently) and only in the event of major violations of the [PC] Constitution/CoL [/PC] or major disruption of the game (NEVER on political grounds).

Outside vs. inside: Outside.

[Timeline]

I strongly feel judges must be elected by the people, lest we fall prey to ugly and possibly disastrous party politics. The people control this government and they must be allowed to choose who shall say what is right and what is wrong. We must not let this crucial decision rest with 10 out of 200 people. That is not democratic.

I urge all DIA members to vote that the people elect judges.

The people are the ones who must live with the consequences, they are the ones who should have a say.

Also, by having the government appoint judges, we are in fact encouraging party politics and corruption. For they may many times be needed to make unjust decisions in order to gain the support needed by their party/government backers.

Preserve our Democracy and vote for democratically elected judges!

[Timeline]

I propose that we have a system similar to what the U.S. uses: the President gets to nominate the judges, but the people have to approve them (by a 60% majority). Also, the President would be required to make sure that half the judicial nominees he puts forward are not of his or her own party.

This still leaves to much power in the hands of the president. And what if the judge is not approved? It could take a long time to finally get a judge into office.

Impeachment vs. no impeachment: Should be allowed, but only for ministers (Presidential impeachment would be handled differently) and only in the event of major violations of the [PC] Constitution/CoL [/PC] or major disruption of the game (NEVER on political grounds).

By doing this you are encouraging party politics and corruption. The Judge may at times be forced to make an unjust ruling to appease government officials, out of fear of impeachment.

I actually feel impeachment by anyone may be a bad idea, because in an attempt to appease the masses, or certain political officials, the judge may be forced to make an unjust ruling. I feel judges should be allowed to carry out their jobs without fear of impeachment. It could taint their rulings, and let's admit, no judge wants to go down in history as being impeached in the civ3demo game, they just won't get reelected if the majority of people aren't happy with their decisions.

[notyoueither]

Timeline. What do you think about the president nominating, the ministers approving and the people confirming?

[notyoueither]

Timeline. I think the impeachment discussion is about what role the court should play in impeaching ministers, not the reverse.

[Timeline]

I touched on it, but I will go deeper.

nominate by the Pres

I feel this is unecessary. If the President must chose half of the candidates that are not from his own party, who is to say he won't choose all IND candidates? And if there is a provision from equal candidates from every party we get into more bueracracy.

Also, the president may choose unqualified candidates from other parties, in an attempt to ensure the candidates from his party is selected.

Why not just have as many candidates sa there are people who want to run? The people can decide who is inept and who is legit.

Approval of the ministers, and confirmation by the people?

This would deffinantly ensure popular judges, and that exactly what you have to be if you want to get approved by all those people. Unfortunantly, just because you are popular doesn't mean you will be fair or a good judge once in office.

That said, there will always be the chance of a bad judge. That is why the people must decide by a 50%, 60%, or 66% majority vote.

They are the ones who will suffer, it should be their responsibility.

[Timeline]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Timeline. I think the impeachment discussion is about what role the court should play in impeaching ministers, not the reverse.

Oh.

I don't think judges should be able to impeach ministers, that gives them to much power.

I think the people's power to impeach ministers or the president, with a 66% majority vote, is just fine.

[LordImpact]

How about this Timeline? Judges have no impeachment power, but they preside over the impeachment hearing which allows the accused to defend himself. After the hearing, the people vote. The Judges have no say, but they present the charges, and keep order in the hearing.

[Timeline]

I like it.....

But anyone should be able to call a hearing as provided for in the constitution.

[LordImpact]

I agree with that. Should the judges also review the case before the trial starts to make sure the prosecutor has a case and is not wasting time?

[Timeline]

If the judges had the ability to throw out Impeachment cases, then that would indeed be a major departure from out current government setup.

While I am not opposed to it, such a change would would require a 2/3 by the people.

I suggest before such a section be added to our judges amendment, we should make an opinion poll to see weather the people want judges to be able to "filter" impeachment hearings.

GOD, we really HAVE made it farther than the civ2 game . This is stuff they only dreamed of .

[Sheik]

I think judges should have the power to throw out impeachment cases. This court idea is great. A judicial is just what this game needs.

[LordImpact]

Yes, they should be able to throw out a case. They would review the case and make sure what the accused did was actually in violation of the constitution. If it was, then a trial will be held (preferably in a chat) where the judges will call the trial into order. Announce the accused and the accusor. Then procede to announce the charges and what part of the constitution has been violated. First the accusor would present his case. Then the accused would defend himself. After that, the room would be open to questions from the public. After the trial, a thread will be created (maybe it should include the chat log for those who were not able to attend) with a poll for the people to decide the fate of the accused.

[Captain]

This might be pretty obvious but just wanted to mention it.

I think we should have our Judicial Amendment passed before any judges are selected or elected.

Given official polls to construct the amendment, that will take at least 2-3 days. Then an additional 2-3 days for voting on the amendment itself. If judges are elected/appointed immediately, then that would place our timeframe about the same as ministerial elections.

I assume then that it will be the next terms' ministers who would be presiding over the appointments/elections of judges. Not that this will matter that much, but it raises the questions given by the clause that no judge may hold a ministerial position in tandem.

I think the idea of avoiding dual positions is already universally accepted, but what have we decided regarding whether or not one can run for a judge position and a ministerial position at the same time?
And what of the proposition (not mine) that judges have not held another public office immediately preceding their term as judge?

---

I am for the idea of 5 judges total (or more) with 3 as the quorum.

The judges cannot make accusations. Cases must be brought to their attention by someone else. Judges cannot make formal accusations.

(Nothing, however, stops a judge from PMing a friend as a private citizen and asking them to make the accusation.)

---
As for judges being removed, yes - just as ministers can be impeached.

I argue for the same procedure/mechanism in both cases.

1) Anyone may make a charge by PM to a judge.
2) There will be a hearing in which judges listen to evidence presented. They do not make a ruling here. They simply check and make sure this is not a baseless charge. At this stage, the accused official is still free to do whatever.
3) If not dismissed, the judges will bring the case to court. The minister or judge will be immediately placed on suspension ( a pre-determined deputy must take over) until the trial is completed.
4) If the judges decide at this point that the minister/judge is not guilty, then that minister/judge is immediately reinstated and all charges dropped. Minister cannot be impeached at this time.
5) If the judges decide that the case has enough merit (guilty beyond reasonable doubt) on a majority decision, they bring the issue to the legislature (all citizens here) who will vote. A 2/3 vote of active voters is required to succeed.

In this case, ministers must be found reasonably guilty by the judges before being impeached. But the judges cannot impeach on their own. The people may refuse to impeach for whatever reason.

Obviously, judges cannot be involved in their own impeachment cases.

Justice must be timely as well. A (10 day? 1 week? 5 day? 3 day?) limit on decisions should be the absolute maximum before the trial is declared a mistrial and the accused set free. Judges cannot use their powers to purposely prolong a trial to hamstring a minister.

As for other decisions, Judges will decide whether polls are valid and on matters of procedure. They will also interpret where conflicts and contradictions in the law exist.

At no time is there "game stoppage". Judges in real life have no power to stop time or go back and replay history. What is done is done. Remember that the justice system cannot truly correct wrongs, they can only punish wrongs. They can provide compensation as well, but not restore things to their original condition.

Judges cannot undo wrongdoings by ministers, they can only place the minister on suspension until the trial is complete and impeach if the people will it.

Judges should also be required to avoid the image of partiality and bias (especially political) because that would tarnish justice and cause people to lose faith in the courts.

---
Lastly, I want to strongly push for judges to have to write out the reasons for their rulings, including any dissenting judges, within 24 hours. If this is not done, the ruling will be deemed invalid.

If the ruling is unanimous, there needs to be only one (1) written report.

If the ruling is split, there must be a Majority report and a Dissenting report. Total two (2) reports.

This clause will prevent capricious and flippant decision making, should we be unfortunate enough to have elected/appointed some bad judges.

One thing we still haven't discussed:
What will be the mechanism for appeal?

[Captain]

Oh, one more thing:

In the trial procedure, the case brought to the attention of the Hearing judge, would then be briefed to the other judges.

The presiding Judges for the hearing (to determine a reasonable basis) would be selected based on (1) availability and (2) randomness. Availability first because it is important to get a hearing done quickly.

If those judges allow the case to proceed to full trial, new Judges would have be to selected, again based on (1) randomness and (2) availability because there should be a chance to have some of the judges be different, in case of being prejudiced by the pre-trial hearing.

[LordImpact]

Originally posted by Captain
This might be pretty obvious but just wanted to mention it.

I think we should have our Judicial Amendment passed before any judges are selected or elected.

Given official polls to construct the amendment, that will take at least 2-3 days. Then an additional 2-3 days for voting on the amendment itself. If judges are elected/appointed immediately, then that would place our timeframe about the same as ministerial elections.

I think the matter of the amendment and selection of the judges should be made after the current election if only to avoid chaos.

I assume then that it will be the next terms' ministers who would be presiding over the appointments/elections of judges. Not that this will matter that much, but it raises the questions given by the clause that no judge may hold a ministerial position in tandem.

I think the idea of avoiding dual positions is already universally accepted, but what have we decided regarding whether or not one can run for a judge position and a ministerial position at the same time?
And what of the proposition (not mine) that judges have not held another public office immediately preceding their term as judge?

Judges should definately NOT hold a ministerial position or any other position, and that includes ambassador/assistant. As for past office, I'm not sure...

I am for the idea of 5 judges total (or more) with 3 as the quorum.

The judges cannot make accusations. Cases must be brought to their attention by someone else. Judges cannot make formal accusations.

(Nothing, however, stops a judge from PMing a friend as a private citizen and asking them to make the accusation.)

I concur. It is not the judges job to go looking for a fight. Since the greviance is made against the people, the people should present the case. Ministers and elected officials included as a pre trial review would make sure the accusor isnt just blowing off steam.

As for judges being removed, yes - just as ministers can be impeached.

I argue for the same procedure/mechanism in both cases.

1) Anyone may make a charge by PM to a judge.
2) There will be a hearing in which judges listen to evidence presented. They do not make a ruling here. They simply check and make sure this is not a baseless charge. At this stage, the accused official is still free to do whatever.
3) If not dismissed, the judges will bring the case to court. The minister or judge will be immediately placed on suspension ( a pre-determined deputy must take over) until the trial is completed.
4) If the judges decide at this point that the minister/judge is not guilty, then that minister/judge is immediately reinstated and all charges dropped. Minister cannot be impeached at this time.
5) If the judges decide that the case has enough merit (guilty beyond reasonable doubt) on a majority decision, they bring the issue to the legislature (all citizens here) who will vote. A 2/3 vote of active voters is required to succeed.

In this case, ministers must be found reasonably guilty by the judges before being impeached. But the judges cannot impeach on their own. The people may refuse to impeach for whatever reason.

Obviously, judges cannot be involved in their own impeachment cases.

Agreed. Judges simply impliment the law. They are not above the law. They should be accused and tried just as any other elected official would.

Justice must be timely as well. A (10 day? 1 week? 5 day? 3 day?) limit on decisions should be the absolute maximum before the trial is declared a mistrial and the accused set free. Judges cannot use their powers to purposely prolong a trial to hamstring a minister.

I agree again.

As for other decisions, Judges will decide whether polls are valid and on matters of procedure. They will also interpret where conflicts and contradictions in the law exist.

At no time is there "game stoppage". Judges in real life have no power to stop time or go back and replay history. What is done is done. Remember that the justice system cannot truly correct wrongs, they can only punish wrongs. They can provide compensation as well, but not restore things to their original condition.

Judges cannot undo wrongdoings by ministers, they can only place the minister on suspension until the trial is complete and impeach if the people will it.

Judges should also be required to avoid the image of partiality and bias (especially political) because that would tarnish justice and cause people to lose faith in the courts.

You're absolutley right.

Lastly, I want to strongly push for judges to have to write out the reasons for their rulings, including any dissenting judges, within 24 hours. If this is not done, the ruling will be deemed invalid.

If the ruling is unanimous, there needs to be only one (1) written report.

If the ruling is split, there must be a Majority report and a Dissenting report. Total two (2) reports.

This clause will prevent capricious and flippant decision making, should we be unfortunate enough to have elected/appointed some bad judges.

One thing we still haven't discussed:
What will be the mechanism for appeal?

Yes, this will definately ensure the neutrality and competance of the judges. Also, I have stated in the previous thread, anyone found treatening a judge or otherwise trying to influence a decision should be removed from office immediately.

Lets hope this will pass with the people

--Impact

[Captain]

Yes, this will definately ensure the neutrality and competance of the judges. Also, I have stated in the previous thread, anyone found treatening a judge or otherwise trying to influence a decision should be removed from office immediately.

Pending trial results of course.

Everyone is entitled to due process, even those corrupt sneaky underhanded evildoers who try to pervert justice!

btw, I'll be away for a few days (2-3), so in the interim, I hope you all come to some good decisions. I know you will as most here seem very clear-headed and have a good basis in the law and democratic society. Just wanted to make sure all the pertinent issues are dealt with before polling. To NYE, Aggie, Trip and the rest of you judicio-philes, thanks for the great discussion so far. This will be a great addition to our Apolytonian government.

In case Trip posts some official polls soon, I leave my case in your hands, Lord Impact.

[Captain]

ahh! forgot!

one more thing...

Since Judges can't be accusors, should we look into formal prosecutors whose duty it is to assist the accuser make a solid case in the event of a full trial?

The pretrial might not warrant a prosecutor, but the full trial might as not everyone is well-versed enough in the law to be able to present the best case.

But if we have prosecutors, then we should also have public defenders, whose duty it is to defend the accused in full trial as well.

Judges are there to decide impartially, not to take one side or another. Are defenders and prosecutors worth having? are they necessary? (well, we did fine without judges for our first term, but no doubt we will find the judicial system very useful in the future)


okay, make that two things. I just wanted to re-iterate that we need a mechanism for appeal as well. how would it go? who would decide whether it was worth re-opening the case? we have only one level of court here but more than one level might be needless complexity...

perhaps an "appeal to Caesar"? whereby the President could force judges to re-open a case?

but if we go with that, it brings up the idea of Presidential pardons... and do we want to go there?

many questions still to be answered...

[Robber Baron]

I like nye's suggestion re 1 and 2.
Questions 3 and 4 don't give as many choices as I would like -- judges should have a role to play in impeachment, but should not be able to impeach ministers all by themselves.
And I concur with nye on the value of common law, meaning a combination of common sense, general understandings, and prior legal decisions, as a supplement to the constitution.
I also like the sound of Captain's suggestion -- that the court should have to present written rulings.