|
Post by csmith on Feb 11, 2005 10:51:04 GMT -5
Babkha had an interesting system in their Supreme Court once. They had three justices, and each would handle different sorts of cases: one focused mainly on criminal, another on civil, and another on administrative things like copyrights and name changes. When a case came up, instead of the entire court handling it, the justice who had responsibility for it would. Here's the link to how they distributed the responsibilities: p202.ezboard.com/fbabkhafrm5.showMessage?topicID=122.topic. What would you think of doing the same thing here, Justice Zachary and Mr. Chief Justice?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 11, 2005 16:34:41 GMT -5
Interesting. However, its unconstituional, as all justices must decide on cases brought to the supreme court. When we get more citizens interested in justice, I would recommend lower courts set up for those 3 categories.
|
|
|
Post by csmith on Feb 11, 2005 17:02:20 GMT -5
Oh, I get it. Yes, we should definitely wait for (a lot) more citizens before establishing lower courts. I would reccomend, though, that the Supreme Court retain original jurisdiction over cases involving ambassadors and public ministers, as well as cases in which the constitutionality of laws is directly concerned or in which the government is a party.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 11, 2005 18:05:20 GMT -5
The Supreme Court has the constitutional right to hear all cases in Lavalon. so, even if a case is brought to a lower court, the supreme court can just snatch it away from them, no matter the subject.
|
|
|
Post by csmith on Feb 11, 2005 18:15:29 GMT -5
Oh, I see, interesting.
|
|
|
Post by timjr on Feb 11, 2005 19:10:03 GMT -5
Actually judges on the Supreme Court can also serve as judges of lower courts in the United States. Following that principle you could give certain types of cases to certain judges on the Supreme Court, since there can be different lower courts for different subjects (trade, immigration, treaty, etc.).
Or, ignoring the US precedent, the Lavalonian Supreme Court could make a ruling automatically recognizing the verdicts of one of its own judges given to specific types of cases, except where the other two judges overrule, since it takes two judges to sway a court opinion anyway.
Either way it is my opinion, as principle drafter of our basic laws and a former Chief Justice, that certain cases can be handled be individual members of the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Post by csmith on Feb 11, 2005 19:11:13 GMT -5
Hmm, Mr. Chief Justice and Justice Zachary, what do you think of Xon's statements?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 11, 2005 20:34:50 GMT -5
I would agree to the establishment of lower specialized courts, more than just splitting the supreme court into bits. I'd prefer to keep the supreme court, as it is now, as the clear top of the justice system. This way, it would avoid confusion.
for instance, I'd still be chief justice, but i would also be the judge of the national civil court. if my ruling is appealed, it would go to the Supreme Court, and a new case would be done. That way the other justices can fully participate in that case.
I think this proposal (if you can understand what im saying, i hard a hard time trying to word it) would do what the Babhkan model did, mix in the US dual-judge thingy, and would keep the supreme court clearly on top, with out a doubt in anyones mind.
But, do we need such a system right now?
|
|
|
Post by Carson on Feb 11, 2005 20:45:46 GMT -5
I'd support it. It gives us a new level of "officialness." I'm happy to serve as either a criminal or civil lower court judge.
|
|
|
Post by timjr on Feb 12, 2005 0:40:39 GMT -5
Yeah, basically that's the way things would work. I think you guys should set this up. You may not need everything now but things would be more organized.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 12, 2005 1:40:33 GMT -5
id like to handle the "administrative" lower court. Once we all pick our courts, ill set up the boards.
|
|
|
Post by csmith on Feb 12, 2005 7:03:09 GMT -5
I'll take civil, so that leaves Z with criminal.
Also, a brief list of what constitutes administrative cases, based on the Babkhan one:
-changes of name -copyrights -adoptions (not like this is going to happen) -incoroporation of societies
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 12, 2005 17:31:48 GMT -5
done. that sure bulked up the judiucial branch
|
|
|
Post by csmith on Feb 12, 2005 19:38:46 GMT -5
Well, it's a really good idea. Makes us look a bit more official.
|
|
|
Post by Z on Feb 13, 2005 21:01:04 GMT -5
Ok
also try to give me alittle more time to respond next time...
|
|