Court Justice Appointment Amendment Act

[Wymondham]

Court Justice Appointment Amendment Act

Article I. Amendments:


(1)Article IV, Section (1) of the Constitution shall be amended as follows:

(1) The President will appoint a Chief Justice to preside over the High Court and two Associate Justices to assist with providing rulings. subject to confirmation by absolute majority vote of the Regional Congress. 

(2)Article IV, Sections (3) and (5) of the Constitution shall be stricken and all subsequent sections appropriately renumbered

(3)Article IV, Section (4) of the Constitution shall be amended as follows:

(4) Upon the Chief Justice determining they have a conflict of interest and recusing themselves from a particular trial or review, the President will appoint one of the existing Associate Justices as Chief Justice and 1 further Associate Justice who shall serve for the remainder of the case. will appoint an Acting Chief Justice and two Associate Justices, subject to confirmation by absolute majority vote of the Regional Congress.

(4)The Following shall be amended into the Constitution as Article IV, Section (6) and all subsequent sections appropriately renumbered:

(6)The President may dismiss the Chief Justice or any associate Justice at any time, however a permanent replacement must be appointed within 7 calendar days.

The reasoning for this Act is simple. The current process of conducting trials and legal reviews is much too long and complex to the point that it denies Citizens the right they should be afford to a speedy trial. This new structure would simplify the process resulting in trials and legal review to be performed much more quickly and flexibility. Therefore I do present this act to the Regional Congress for your consideration

[Cormac]

Where do you intend to find two permanent Associate Justices?

I'm completely opposed to appointment of justices without confirmation. Way too much power for the President.

[Wymondham]

Mar 9, 2019 14:06:37 GMT -5 Cormac said:

Where do you intend to find two permanent Associate Justices?

I'm completely opposed to appointment of justices without confirmation. Way too much power for the President.

Perhaps allowing the Chief Justice to still be comfirmed, but removing the requirement for Associate Justices to be comfirmed

[cataluna]

Opposed for reasons previously stated. I thought Pacifica was supposed to be democratic. It's concerning that we're creeping closer to autocracy.

[Wymondham]

I'm gonna put this on hold after conversations in the discord

[Dino]

At first glance, it's not the worst, however, let's say a case has been accepted by the Chief Justice and they are to appoint two Associative Justices that require confirmation, wouldn't this drag on this case. I believe we should be transparent and question the appoint of the Associative Justices but I tend to believe in a quick and speedy trial. Not to mention I don't think the President should officially touch the Associatives. What if the exact case the Chief is recusing from is a case where it indicts or questions the Presidency. Could the President appoint Associative Justices whom they believe will rule in the President's favor, causing the Court to become biased in some parts of the case and upsets the impartially of the Court? I acknowledge that this is on hold however I felt I should give my opinion on this. If anything, the Chief and Associative Justices should be nominated by the President around the same time rather than Associatives being temporary for only one case and the Chief being permanent unless their term has expired, or held accountable and recalled.

[qwabourharbour]

I don't have a problem with the bit that sounds slightly North Korea. What I have a problem is what if everyone has a conflict of interest? Then what. Does the President hold a new confirmation and delay the cas3?

[Wymondham]

The response to this act has been a learning experience for me, I withdraw this act

[Dino]

Mar 10, 2019 10:52:43 GMT -5 Wymondham said:

The response to this act has been a learning experience for me, I withdraw this act

This has been noted. Thread locked.