Judiciary

[Gulliver]

I think recent events have shown we really need some formal mechanism for interpreting the law and constitution, i.e. a judiciary. That said, I am unsure what shape it should take. I am wary of having justices who sit around most of the time doing nothing, only being called upon in the occasional exceptional case. But we also want people making decisions like this to be somewhat impartial and knowledgeable.

[Khem]

I am unsure if impartiality is attainable but agree that some form of judicial system is necessary.

[St Oz]

You sure about a judiciary? The admins do a very good judge dredd deal.

[Delfos]

You sure about a judiciary? The admins do a very good judge dredd deal.

[Wast]

I don't have a problem with appointing judges/justices/lawspeakers (or whatever we call them) that have little to do until a case appears. We could even give the justices some other more mundane duty (like keeping laws updated, or appointing clerks to do that for them because they are lazy and don't want to do it).

Alternately, we could come up with a mechanism by which the other branches can deal with the issue and not bother with a judiciary at all. Is there really a need to have one? What issues have come up that could not be adequately resolved by the rest of the government?

[Sovereign Dixie]

You sure about a judiciary? The admins do a very good judge dredd deal.

I AM DA LAW!!!

But eh, I don't really see a need for it, myself. Just another branch of government for people to exploit and become entangled with the agendas of others as well as outside interests.

[Delfos]

I don't have a problem with appointing judges/justices/lawspeakers (or whatever we call them) that have little to do until a case appears. We could even give the justices some other more mundane duty (like keeping laws updated, or appointing clerks to do that for them because they are lazy and don't want to do it).

Alternately, we could come up with a mechanism by which the other branches can deal with the issue and not bother with a judiciary at all. Is there really a need to have one? What issues have come up that could not be adequately resolved by the rest of the government?

We've had Citizen-Mediator and it has never been used.

[Gulliver]

The Citizen-Mediator was for inter personal disputes as I understood it, not criminal or constitutional ones.

[Delfos]

The Citizen-Mediator was for inter personal disputes as I understood it, not criminal or constitutional ones.

in the end they are all personal.

And our history of dealing with this crap is deplorable, there is no sense of justice, there has been things done for shts and giggles that all admins were fine with it. In the end they are personal.

[Gulliver]

Having the same scholars responsible for archiving the law interpret it as well, as Wast suggests, could be workable. Perhaps it could be framed in such a way that people have the realistic expectation that this is not a full time position, but something they can be called upon to do in exceptional cases, like jury duty. Perhaps a reserve group of respected jurors considered knowledgeable about the law and reasonably level-headed? Though that then begs the question of how they would be selected.

EDIT: We could have lay judges appointed on a case-by-case basis, expanding on the Citizen-Mediator idea, though whether it's adversarial or inquisitional is an important question.

[Prydania]

I suggest having the Ecclesia serve as the judiciary should the need arise (think House of Lords serving as the top court in the UK until relatively recently). The Ecclesia could choose a "Chief Justice" from among its ranks for each case it hears.
This would fill the need for a judiciary without bloating the government.

[Gulliver]

The Massachusetts General Court also used to be a judicial court of appeals.

I can see it working with criminal cases, since you could require a super-majority to convict. For constitutional review however, if two sides claim different interpretations, how do you choose between the two? The only thing that guarantees an outcome either way is a majority, and allowing a simple majority to circumvent the constitution without having to amend it by a super-majority is a problem.

[Wast]

The simplest course of action is to leave these matters to the Ecclesia and accept that there might be an intractable constitutional dispute. We can establish some rules for the Ecclesia handling criminal cases and leave it at that.   

[Gulliver]

I suppose one could require a two-thirds majority either way to decide a constitutional dispute, or a two-thirds majority to overturn a law or executive action. I do want there to be some mechanism for resolving such disputes, however, so that a rogue government official can be checked by clear, legal means rather than arbitrary founder or administrator intervention.

[Eluvatar]

In theory a Delegate or other official violating the constitution should be removed from office for doing so, which the Ecclesia can do.