Amendment: Judicial Branch

[OPD]

I like this idea gillespie but what if the major parties change or if the relative memberships change. If the party's appointments become reweighted then who decides this, surely not the judges.

In terms of judge numbers IMO 3 is ok but they'd have to be around a lot and be reliable people. If 5 then they'd also have to be quite reliable. 7+ gives slack for no shows or drop outs.

[mtgillespie]

OK then. We decide a number of judges. Don't forget, this doesn't have to be an odd number, as long as the number who sit for each particular issue/case is odd, and we ensure that each judge sits on an equal or similar number of cases. Or we could pick t random from the pool each time.

Once we know how many judges we have, they are appointed by the parties in proportion to how many ministerial posts that party has. We add in a couple of independent judges, which means no party affiliation OR allied to a party that holds no office. They are either appointed by the 2 main parties 1 each (whoever those parties are), or voted on by the masses. If we stagger the elections, so each month the government votes for half the judges, it should stop too much bias to one party, unless they're winning every election, in which case they should have more long term say.

[jdd2007]

we shouldnt have too many judges. there would be no point in having 9. 3 would do the job just as well, and without as much squabbling. Judges should be elected and serve 2, maybe three terms...

[mtgillespie]

You have 3 sit on any issue, but you need more as no-one can be around all the time, and so you have a bigger spread of opinions.

[Sheik]

I like mtgillespie's ideas. I think we should have a balance with judges from every party.

[Duddha]

I think the court should be as removed as possible from party politics. The parties are the wacky part of the game while the court's decisions need to be made on the basis of reason.

[Captain]

This is a bit long to read but it lays out the reason why I propose what I do.


While it is true that judges are seldom apolitical, we should want our system to have an independent judicial branch. That means our judges should not only avoid the being political, but also avoid the appearance of being political. Otherwise, what is the point of having judges? Just let the ministers decide, since they are elected representatives.

Judges who are seen to be political puppets cannot be respected and trusted to render fair and impartial judgments. Therefore the very idea that judges be based on political parties is repugnant.

Of course, in many real life systems, judges are appointed by governments based on their political sympathies and/or are elected based on certain political stances. There is a willing suspension of disbelief that allows the public to accept the justice system as impartial and in accordance with the law, even if the very same individuals wholeheartedly disagree with certain judgments.

I am not sure of a solution, but appointment followed by public ratification would be a compromise.

Although it would seem that election is the most democratic, this politicizes the position too much. Then again, who is to say that appointment is not political?

Then again, this whole democracy game is a bit skewed. Citizens are not ordinary citizens who vote on elected representatives to sit in the legislature and make laws. Every citizen here already sits on the legislature. We are the law-makers, who also elect our executive branch to carry out instructions according to the laws we make. Does that executive then get to appoint judges to make judgments about the legality of our laws and the actions of government? Or does the legislature elect judges? Typically ministers are appointed, not elected, so we have already decided on that route. Perhaps judges should also be elected?

Regardless of which of the two we pick, it should most definitely NOT be based on proportions of political parties. There should be no guarantee of UFC or DIA reps, other than the presence of one should be balanced by the presence of the other in elections or appointments to preserve the appearance of impartiality. The alternative is to go strictly with independents, although this might lead simply to some UFC or DIA members dropping official party status. I am not sure of the Constitutionality of banning party members from holding judicial office either, though I am aware that this perfectly legal in the sense that as a legislature we can vote on it and make it so (and currently our Constitution holds that as long as the polling is valid and there is no contradiction with existing points, then the results are valid)

Well, since we are the legislature, let us make a law regarding elections versus appointments. As soon as we've had a bit more discussion, we can have a poll and make that law.


Based on the above, my personal opinion is we would best have 5 judges, 3 of whom form a quorum (minimum necessary for a decision to be reached). In the case of four judges tied, the fifth judge would be obliged to break the tie. Otherwise, two judges may abstain from judging if the other three are present.

Judges make rulings about:
1) the Constitutionality of laws (polls)
2) the legality of executive actions (what the ministers actually do)

based on (in the following order):
1) the Constitution
2) existing laws
3) official government policies
4) existing strongly established conventions & traditions (from this civ 3 demo game)
5) existing strongly established conventions & traditions (from other similar demo games)

Judges should be free from fear of governmental interference and having to pander to public opinion since they are to make rulings based on the LAW, not based on what they think will win them votes. Therefore, to maintain the independence of the judicial system judges should have no fixed length to their term. Otherwise, judges may be subject to political retribution (at re-election time or re-appointment time) and may be bullied into certain decisions. (In that case, judges are unnecessary and just rubber stampers). Judges will be subject to removal only with governmental indictment and a 2/3 majority in polling OR accusation of wrong-doing by any citizen and unaminous conviction by the remaining judges OR by voluntary self-removal.

Judges are not eligible to run for or hold executive offices (Pres, VP, ministers, ambassadors, deputies, etc...) while remaining a judge, and vice versa.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Duddha
I think the court should be as removed as possible from party politics. The parties are the wacky part of the game while the court's decisions need to be made on the basis of reason.

well put! and much more concisely than my long-winded reply.

[Aggie]

I agree captain and duddha, it would be a serious mistake for judges to have serious party affiliation. From one of my previous post,
As far as the political leanings of the judges I agree that they should be(as much as is possible) fairly nonpolitcal. Perhaps we can say that a judge shall not have held politcal office during the previous/following month of their term. Perhaps they should not have participated in political debates or campaigns either. Though of course they still keep their right to vote.

I do think however that they should be appointed with ministerial approval, though pehaps maybe 2/3 as opposed to simple majority. Though approval by the people could work too.

One last point, the reason I would prefer terms, long terms, but terms none the less, would be so there would be a tendency toward new blood, and to increase the number of people participating in government. Also lets face it, I find it unlikely that we could remove a judge unless under the most grievious of crimes. So a bad judge could stay forever, this way after his/her 2 month term he would be gone. However a good judge could very well be reappointed later(in2 months)
Also perhaps we should select an alternate 4th judge who would only serve if one of the others couldn't make the hearing. Perhaps this is a better solution than enlarging the court.
Best regards,
Aggie

[Captain]

Originally posted by Aggie
I agree captain and duddha, it would be a serious mistake for judges to have serious party affiliation. From one of my previous post,
As far as the political leanings of the judges I agree that they should be(as much as is possible) fairly nonpolitcal. Perhaps we can say that a judge shall not have held politcal office during the previous/following month of their term. Perhaps they should not have participated in political debates or campaigns either. Though of course they still keep their right to vote.

I think judges should be free to participate in whatever debates they want. They can make political statements so long as it is clear that those statements are those of a private citizen and are not endorsed by the judiciary.

However, a judge using his office/position to make political statements would be grounds for removal of that judge. The charge would be Bringing the justice system into disrepute. The reason is that for people to accept the judgements of the Judiciary as real justice and not just a farce, they must trust in it. Actions that cause the public to lose trust in the judiciary would be cause enough to remove such a judge from office, if found guilty by the other judges or a 2/3 majority.

Judges have all the citizens rights, but cannot hold any other governmental position at the same time, nor can they run for any other position while holding their judicial office. They must resign first. This may provide enough incentive for a judge to quit.

One last point, the reason I would prefer terms, long terms, but terms none the less, would be so there would be a tendency toward new blood, and to increase the number of people participating in government. Also lets face it, I find it unlikely that we could remove a judge unless under the most grievious of crimes. So a bad judge could stay forever, this way after his/her 2 month term he would be gone. However a good judge could very well be reappointed later(in2 months)

Well, if we adopt the clause that a judge must not bring into disrepute the justice system and that he/she can be removed by a trial OR by a 2/3 majority (since that 2/3 majority feels this judge is untrustworthy, our justice system would not be trusted if we kept him/her), then I think that is adequate for removal.

What I am concerned about is whether appointed judges would feel obliged to render judgments in favour of the President who appointed them or feel vulnerable if the President (heaven forbid) should try to intimidate them. Or if the President merely appoints a new set of judges when the current rulings do not please him. In that case, then the President may as well be judge, jury, and executioner.

In that case, elections would be better. But then, we run the risk of just making it another political position. The idea that democracy means a simple rule of the majority is an immature one. The one vote per person rule that we use in Democracy is based on the fundamental concept that each person's vote counts for the same, each has an equal standing before the law.
Based on the same concept of the rule of LAW (which is the REAL foundation for democracy, not "majority rules"), each person is protected by the law, both from the whims of dictators and the tyranny of the majority.

The tyranny of the majority means that only those who belong to the majority are equal under the law. The others, the minorities, are less than equal. Their voices are silenced or marginalized.

Just because the majority thinks something is a good idea (I won't get into real life examples, but say a dominant DIA or UFC is able to pass a 51% resolution banning the other party from political power) doesn't mean it is. To those who doubt such a thing would ever happen, just check. It has happened in history and I have no desire right now to defend historical facts.

The rule of LAW is what protects the minority and what makes democracy work. It is what allows the minority to accept the decisions made by the majority as 'fair'. When the minority feels threatened, as though being so marginalized that their rights are imperiled, then democracy falls apart. Minorities unable to accept majority rule will resort to seceding and often violence to protect themselves.

In the case of this game, there is no threat of violence (other than spamming, threadjacking, etc... which would result in mod banning, which could be considered an electronic version of suicide bombing.) But if we want to keep citizens active, we cannot sideline them by our majority rules. They will leave when they know they have no voice. Democracy works as a system of checks and balances, the judiciary MUST be independent to check and balance the other branches. Most importantly, only they protect the minority since the other branches are skewed towards resolutions by the majority.

If justice is as subject to rule of the majority as ministerial positions are, then there is NO RECOURSE. Political justice, just as idealogical justice or ethnic justice, fails everyone without power. Without a free and independent justice system, a power struggle is the only recourse of the disenfranchised. Then what we have is a country of warlords whose weapons consist of polls.

So elections are not foolproof either.

I really don't have a good solution. I just wanted to point out such considerations and indicate some likely consequences.

Also perhaps we should select an alternate 4th judge who would only serve if one of the others couldn't make the hearing. Perhaps this is a better solution than enlarging the court.

I think 5 is a good number. That gives 2 alternates. But they shouldn't be considered alternates. There may be a number of legal disputes at any time and it should be the job of ANY 3 of them to decide, not just the 3 main ones with the alternates subbing in only infrequently. Only 3 are necessary but 5 may partake without resulting in a hung "jury".

(NOTE: I do believe most of what I'm writing but it is also a bit of roleplay, esp the rhetoric)

[UnOrthOdOx]

Just thinking aloud here.

I like 3 Judges myself.

The first set of Judges should be elected. From there, each president will nominate one Judge to replace an older one. His Nomination must be approved by the Ministers. (Original order of which Judge is replaced first is randomized, then oldest one first) This will lead to Judges having a 3 month term, but one new Judge each election term as well. Judges cannot serve consecutive terms, but could be re-nominated later.

[Duddha]

Good idea Unorthodox.

[Jon Shafer]

3 Months is a long time you know.
I'm not sure anyone would want to have to do that for so long... I know I couldn't.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Like I said, just thinking aloud.

I do not see that this will be all that intensive a job, really. Not after it is all set, at least. Once things are established there shouldn't be alot of issues, I would think. 3 Months...I don't know. May be too long, but I think length is more needed in this area than some others. One can always resign if needed as well.

[Captain]

I think UnOrthOdOx's idea is pretty good. But I favour 5 judges instead of 3. Perhaps you could have 2 replaced every term instead to prevent a 5 month turnover.

I don't think 3 months is that long. Think how fast this one went by. If it is too long, they'll just retire. Remember during that time, they can't hold other positions, they can't even run for other positions (or shouldn't be able to IMHO).

Besides, since they're mostly occupied with official polling, I don't think they'll have that much to do. Most people accept the official polls without arguing too much. Well, maybe not...