Kraketopia Triumphs in Controversial Nomination for Justice


Kraketopia Triumphs in Controversial Nomination for Justice
By Deepest House
​


(Europeia - February 22, 2017) - On February 17, President Aexnidaral Seymour re-nominated Chief Justice Kraketopia to his position on the court as Justice, sparking debate in both the Senate and Citizens’ Assembly over the nomination and Kraketopia’s merits for another term on the bench.

Much of the debate and controversy surrounded the potential for Kraketopia to serve again as Chief Justice, after what many have called a lackluster term.

Senator Pichtonia offered the initial resistance to the nomination during the confirmation hearing. “There are clear concerns about his fulfillment of the Chief Justice duties,” the Senator said. “With a record of not fulfilling these duties well … I think it would be ignorant of the Senate not to address it.”

While Pichtonia probed the quality of his performance, Senator Rand questioned the nominee’s activity levels, not just on the court but during his previous term as Grand Admiral.

“Is Kraken active,” Senator Rand asked during the hearing. “I know he was fairly inactive as Grand Admiral last term, and Notolecta claims that, during his time on the court, Kraken was inactive as a Justice.”

In the Citizens’ Assembly, it was Notolecta who led the crusade against this nomination, arguing vigorously against Kraketopia.

“He hasn’t even earned another term as Justice,” Notolecta said in his opening salvo against Kraketopia on the floor of the Citizens’ Assembly.

“Kraken has been highly problematic when it comes to activity both on and off the court,” Notolecta alleged as he continued to rail against the nomination. He insinuated that the other members of the bench are weak and subject to manipulation by Kraketopia, adding that the nominee “is a bully and will likely attempt to bully his way into the Chief Justice spot … and frankly has no business serving as Chief Justice.”

hyanygo also took to the floor of the Citizens’ Assembly to call into question Kraketopia’s plans for legal education in the region and the outcome of the most recent judicial conference.

“I would not vote for [him] if I were looking at the plan for education alone,” hyanygo said. “Furthermore, the most recent Kraketopia organised conference was the least effective and influential yet.”

During the confirmation, Kraketopia addressed some of the concerns regarding his ambitions for the Chief Justice position, performance, and activity levels. “This is a Court of strong, veteran players that aren't going to be intimidated by someone they feel isn't capable of doing the job and makes them look bad via association,” he said, refuting Notolecta’s allegation that he could bully his way into the Chief Justice position.

“Time hasn't been in an issue during my term as Chief Justice and I have executed all duties diligently and quickly,” Kraketopia answered regarding his performance and available time to be active in the Court. “I don't foresee time being an issue in the future, especially now that I do not have a Cabinet position to split my focus.”

Ultimately, the nomination did garner the necessary support to win the confirmation.

“Kraken is one of our best legal minds,” Senator United Vietussia said on the floor of the Senate. “There isn't a better choice in Europeia to fill his seat. I fully support the nominee.” In a twist, however, the Senator voted Abstain rather than Aye.

“I have served with him before and he is certainly qualified to sit on the Court,” Senator Drecq proclaimed while adding that he was ready to vote.

On February 22, the Senate voted to confirm Kraketopia to the bench for another term as Justice. Now it is up to the Court to decide amongst themselves who will serve as Chief Justice, a position Kraketopia openly sought during the confirmation.
 
Click to expand...
This makes me wish ZB had an upvote system.
 
I think it might be good if we added a quote in there from Onder, he spoke quite actively during this event.
 
Onder spent most of the time debating the merits of the Senate evaluating and voting on a candidate relative to their ambition to seek the position of Chief Justice.

That was an interesting aspect to this, but outside the scope of this article. It’s something that has been discussed, and planned, as a potential follow-up after the court elects a new Chief Justice.

I certainly did not overlook Onder’s contributions to the debate, but they were in a bit of a different direction.
 
I suppose an explanation is in order for my vote. I voiced my concern early on, but concerns brought up by other Senators caused me to change mind at the last minute. I don't think Kraken isn't capable, but I didn't feel comfortable voting to confirm either, so I abstained.
 
Very well written, though I would have focused more on the CA debates, as they were passionate.
 
Constie said:
Very well written, though I would have focused more on the CA debates, as they were passionate.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they also quickly got off topic. A meandering article isn't a good one, usually.
 
I must say that you distort my involvement in the debate. I was not pushing against the nomination, and had no expectation or desire to see a rejection. I was simply arguing that the Senate has the right and the duty to examine all possible issues that could arrise from confirmation and that the kraken was not an infalible nominee and deserved thorough vetting. Just because I brought up flaws and shortcomings does not mean I was opposed to the nomination, and every post you quoted from included statements that provided that context and clarified my apathy when it came to the actual confirmation.
 
Noto, I’m sorry if you feel that I mischaracterized your words; however they are your words and you have to own them. I think it is very clear that you were against the nomination, but you simply didn’t feel that it was worth the effort to expend energy fighting against it (see below).

That said, here are some additional quotes to provide further context into your position on the nomination:

“Hell There are several people that are repeatedly appointed to the courts throughout time that many members of the legal community of the region see as being bad influences on the court(as in damaging to our system not as in they disagree with them a lot), but no one speaks the hell up. This needs to change starting right now with this nomination.” This quote very clearly implies and insinuates that you include Kraketopia in that group.

“Frankly the only reason I won't oppose his very nomination strongly is because I don't expect any more than filling the empty seat with a body, and it's just not worth fighting over which empty body to put in there.” So, yes, you did oppose the nomination. The degree to which may be debatable, but whether you did is not.

And finally, there’s this. “And to be frank if I were a senator, I would probably be voting nay on kraken...” I think this also leaves your position very clear.

I certainly had no intent to distort your words – I simply used your actual quotes in the context of this story. The argument about the role of the Senate in vetting candidates is a different issue and different story, as mentioned above in regard to Onder’s contributions to the debate (and I agree that the Senate cand and should consider whatever it likes while vetting candidates). Statements made in the CA, Grand Hall, or any public space are fair game for journalists to use. I think most reasonable people would read the thread, and your quotes, and come away thinking you were definitely against the nomination. Given that, that I did so as well shouldn’t be a surprise.
 
Deepest House said:
Noto, I’m sorry if you feel that I mischaracterized your words; however they are your words and you have to own them. I think it is very clear that you were against the nomination, but you simply didn’t feel that it was worth the effort to expend energy fighting against it (see below).

That said, here are some additional quotes to provide further context into your position on the nomination:

“Hell There are several people that are repeatedly appointed to the courts throughout time that many members of the legal community of the region see as being bad influences on the court(as in damaging to our system not as in they disagree with them a lot), but no one speaks the hell up. This needs to change starting right now with this nomination.” This quote very clearly implies and insinuates that you include Kraketopia in that group.
Click to expand...
don't mean to distort my words, but you remove context from this and claim iI was talking about kraken when I wasn't. The point of that statement was, as indicated in the rest of that post, that we don't take a hard enough line on the court or hold it to a high enough standard including myself and fellow judicial scholars of whom frequently take issue with things, and nominations but remain silent. Kraken was not at all one of the people I was talking about, and it's your problem that you wanted to assume that.

Additionally there is a difference between not supporting a nomination and the picture you paint as if I was fighting or arguing against it. None of my complaints or concerns were directed at preventing the nomination, and I was on no crusade against it. My only intent with my comments were to ensure a proper and in depth discussion occurred.
 
That was one comment – and maybe you weren’t including Kraken but your post can reasonably be interpreted as such. I don’t think I’m off-base with that, and I think most people would probably agree that is a reasonable interpretation. It’s not my “problem” that I assumed anything; if there’s any “problem” it’s lack of clarity in your writing of that statement.

I also think the rest of the comments which I provided and you did not address further confirm that you were against the nomination.

There is a difference between “not supporting” and “opposing.” You don’t get to say you oppose it in the CA and then come back and try to shape that as “not supporting.” You very clearly stated that you opposed it. As I said, the degree to which you opposed it is up for debate.

You stated you were opposed to the nomination and you stated that you would likely vote against Kraketopia if you were a Senator, in addition to the statements quoted in the article. I’ll leave it at that, because that’s all that needs to be said. Everyone can decide for themselves if you were against the nomination or not.
 
Deepest House said:
That was one comment – and maybe you weren’t including Kraken but your post can reasonably be interpreted as such. I don’t think I’m off-base with that, and I think most people would probably agree that is a reasonable interpretation. It’s not my “problem” that I assumed anything; if there’s any “problem” it’s lack of clarity in your writing of that statement.

I also think the rest of the comments which I provided and you did not address further confirm that you were against the nomination.

There is a difference between “not supporting” and “opposing.” You don’t get to say you oppose it in the CA and then come back and try to shape that as “not supporting.” You very clearly stated that you opposed it. As I said, the degree to which you opposed it is up for debate.

You stated you were opposed to the nomination and you stated that you would likely vote against Kraketopia if you were a Senator, in addition to the statements quoted in the article. I’ll leave it at that, because that’s all that needs to be said. Everyone can decide for themselves if you were against the nomination or not.
Click to expand...
I wasn't fighting the nomination DH. Period. My arguments were about saying kraken wasn't suitable, they were about defending the Senate's right and duty to examine carefully a nominee and pointing out that there were things that needed to examined here that it wasn't simply a matter "kraken is good, next". My arguments were never to say the senate shouldn't approve kraken, they were that the senate needed to consider and debate it and that people shouldn't criticize them for considering all avenues and potential shortcomings of the nomination.

My opinions on the nomination do not have anything to do with what my purpose was in that discussion, which you falsely paint as being opposition to kraken, which it was not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top