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?