Amendment II: Apolytonian Court - Idea Compilation

[notyoueither]

re the court running amok. That is what impeachment is about.

Suppose that 67% of the people vote for an idea that 75% of the ministers agree on. Suppose that the idea has nothing what so ever to do with any other part of the CoL (or constitution). Suppose that 3 reactionaries on the court go out of their way to turf the plan. How long do you think that court would remain unchanged? Especially with other members of the court leading the charge to topple the tyrants.

[LordImpact]

Exactly. The Judge should be removed after he has his own impeachment trial, and the people vote him out of office. Also on the issue of Impeachment, I don't think anyone who has been impeached should be able to run for any office ever again. I don't know if it should be made an amendment or just a standard.

--Impact

[Jon Shafer]

The judges are to be re-picked when their terms are over. If they wish to serve again, then they can speak with the powers that be.

[notyoueither]

Trip, I think you will find very vocal and persistent opposition to that when this goes to official poll.

[Jon Shafer]

So do you suggest they serve permanent terms?

[notyoueither]

No. I suggest that politics of the parties, and the decision of a single individual be removed from direct involvement in the process of reconfirmation for a sitting judge.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No. I suggest that politics of the parties, and the decision of a single individual be removed from direct involvement in the process of reconfirmation for a sitting judge.

Then why not confirmation in the first place?
If a new President refuses to appoint a popular and successful judge, and instead appoint one of his own cronies, he could find support for him diminishing among more middle-ground people in all parties.

[notyoueither]

Yes Trip, the idea of confirmation by the people as part of the process was being welcomed in the discussion thread, only it wasn't one of the options you polled for. You asked for elected, not confirmed. Ask the people if they wish to vote to confirm, and I think you know what will happen. Hense, if you go by a poll then discussion, you will miss the benefit of the discussion.

I think a consensus was being arrived at that initial nomination by the president should be followed by 51% of the ministers approving and then 51% of the people confirming.

Reconfirmation came late in the discussion. However, I believe you will find more people favour reconfirmation solely on the basis of the judge being willing and the people accepting. If it followed a discussion of the matter.

[disorganizer]

Why not the following:
Let the citizenry elect the judges. A judge will stay there live-long until he resigns (immediate election for his replacement is held) or the court is disbanded.

Disbanding the court is done by a simple citizen poll. This should be set up by ANY citizen and should be up for 5 days. If it is accepted, the court COMPLETELY leaves office, but all judges can be reelected on the following full-reelection of the court.

We should also deny any political activity (party or group membership as well as holding an office) for any of the judges, just to enforce their impartiallity.
Meaning: No member of a party or a citizen-group and no official position holder can be nominated for judge, as well as no judge can be nominated for any official position.

[mtgillespie]

Originally posted by disorganizer
We should also deny any political activity (party or group membership as well as holding an office) for any of the judges, just to enforce their impartiallity.
Meaning: No member of a party or a citizen-group and no official position holder can be nominated for judge, as well as no judge can be nominated for any official position.

This is a waste of time. So someone is in a party, they resign, and that immediately changes their views? As long as we can remove judges who become radical, there is no problem with them belonging to a party. No-one is completely a-political, whether they belong to a party or not, and we should notpretend that this is the case. We should accept that people are political, and have judges from a spectrum of political views. How about this instead :-

There shall never be more than 2 judges from any one political party. Party membership is considered to continue for one month after resignation. There must always be one independant judge at all times.

That will probably need a lot of changing, but you get the basic idea.

[Harovan]

The government shall in no way be able to impeach judges. Its members may vote as citizens, but not more. The 51% majority Trip proposed, may lead to the right to impeach a judge by one of the political parties, that happens to have the current majority. Another try of the government, to gain absolute power .

Countries, where the governments are able to impeach a judge, are corrupt. The only power, able to impeach a judge, shall be the court itself.

[Sheik]

The government cant have the power to impeach judges because the court has the power to impeach other government officilas right? You can't have two groups with the power to impeach each other and still keep the system running properly.

[Harovan]

According to Trip it can. Btw, this matter has not been discussed before.

Originally posted by Trip
A judge may be removed from his office by a 51% vote amongst the ministers and a 2/3 vote amongst the people. In turn, the court may impeach a minister with a 75% vote within the court, and a 51% amongst the people (as opposed to only a 2/3 vote amongst the people).

[disorganizer]

it should maybe be vice-versa:
51% for citizen vote, 75% for ministers ;-)

@mtgillespie: this would also be an idea. but i still would not like an official being a judge at the same time. this would be the same "mixing the 3 powers" as judges being appointed by the government.

[mtgillespie]

Originally posted by disorganizer


@mtgillespie: this would also be an idea. but i still would not like an official being a judge at the same time. this would be the same "mixing the 3 powers" as judges being appointed by the government.

I completely agree on that point.