Apolytonian Court: Number of Judges

[Jon Shafer]

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]

I guess we both say five.

[notyoueither]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[LordImpact]

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]

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]

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]

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

--Impact