Making a Mountain out of the Judiciary


Making a Mountain out of the Judiciary
A Little Legalese
Op-Ed written by Malashaan and hyanygo
​

When I was about eight there was a huge monster of a hill out on the playing fields. We would spill and scatter like roe from a gutted fish, all toward that great monster. It had sharp, large, rocks for teeth, and its grass licked our ankles as we went to it. But when I go back now it is nothing more than a mewling kitten. When we have nothing to compare things to, or when we forget our history, we reach too readily for the superlative.

We are in danger of reaching for the superlative when we say that we have no candidates to nominate for Justice. Consecutive Presidents have had a difficult time appointing Justices. The common refrain is that our system is too advanced, that an intimate knowledge of Europeia specific law is a prerequisite, and that legal skills alone are not enough. We have gambled with our language, and we have created our monster.

Whilst it is true that there are difficulties in nominating candidates, this should not be news. It is a familiar playing field. We have overcome bigger hills and fought much larger monsters. The solution is a time tested one. We ought to selectively target people. And it should be a "we" of the Justices, the Attorney General, the Chair of the Bar, and any other interested people. It will be a great tragedy if any of these groups were absent out of misguided notions of appropriateness.

Some insist that the Justices should steer clear of legal education out of a misguided sense that this would somehow "taint the pool" by exerting undue influence on budding legal scholars. However, one of our most successful Chief Justices, Pope Lexus X, built his reputation in the legal field by establishing meaningful activities in which interested citizens could participate, from lectures to mock trials, and everything in between. He believed that it was his duty as Chief Justice to foster legal debate and thought in the region, and that belief served us well.

Our efforts are wasted if they are applied generally. Our great challenge is to present and deliver with overdue finality a clear and obvious path over the hill and towards Justiceship. Partly this means providing a range of educational resources to help interested candidates develop skills and knowledge, but it also means accepting that prior experience is valuable, and that a good legal mind will flourish given the opportunity, regardless of the specifics of prior experience.

Our education program should give our students the opportunity to develop and demonstrate their logical thinking and critical reasoning. Then we should make sure they know where things are. Lastly, we should introduce them to some methods of interpreting the rules they find. There is nothing peculiar to Europeia except knowing where things are. A good reasoner is a good reasoner.

We were alarmed at the arrogance shown to Phazon in rejecting him as a Justice candidate, apparently out of hand. It was an absurd little show. We were adamant that Europeian Law was so complex and individualized that a skilled newcomer could not possibly thrive on the bench. This is simply not the case. Our legal system is something of which we are rightly proud. It is arguably the best in NationStates, but we have hyped it up and given it features it simply does not have.

It is a system rooted in the Anglo-American tradition. Our rules of construction and procedure would seem familiar to any lawyer in the Western world. Yes, our statutes and body of case law is large for NationStates, but they are miniscule to what even poor lawyers deal with every day in the real world. Put simply, an individual with Phazon's skills and experience would undoubtedly have thrived given the opportunity, regardless of his Europeia-specific experience. We are lucky that it appears he was not so offended by the cursory rejection we handed down, and is willing to "earn" an opportunity. He would have been well within his rights to walk away, and Europeia would have been worse off for it.

We have overstated the complexity of our legal system to our detriment. We should remain proud of our legal system, but we should be proud of what it is, not elevate it to a mythical platform that it will not, cannot, and should not reach.
 
Click to expand...
Reading this article really makes me wish we had an active Bar. Well-written and definitely worth noting for future Senate confirmation periods.
 
I rejected Phazon out of hand in part because he was unlikely to have read a single Europeian law and we should strive for higher than that with out justices. But also because we've tried that before. We nominated and chose a Justice before that had the required basic skills and likely could have read himself into the material very quickly. And then he disappeared. Phazon hasnt even logged in for 10 days and his post count hasnt climbed higher than it was then. It is still in the double digits. Its great that you think we should have let him in but putting people on the bench that wont be here is something that I will continue to reject out of hand. You want my support for the Bench prove that you wont disappear immediately by having been here for longer than 3 days.
 
Drecq said:
I rejected Phazon out of hand in part because he was unlikely to have read a single Europeian law and we should strive for higher than that with out justices. But also because we've tried that before. We nominated and chose a Justice before that had the required basic skills and likely could have read himself into the material very quickly. And then he disappeared. Phazon hasnt even logged in for 10 days and his post count hasnt climbed higher than it was then. It is still in the double digits. Its great that you think we should have let him in but putting people on the bench that wont be here is something that I will continue to reject out of hand. You want my support for the Bench prove that you wont disappear immediately by having been here for longer than 3 days.
Click to expand...
^
 
Drecq said:
I rejected Phazon out of hand in part because he was unlikely to have read a single Europeian law and we should strive for higher than that with out justices. But also because we've tried that before. We nominated and chose a Justice before that had the required basic skills and likely could have read himself into the material very quickly. And then he disappeared. Phazon hasnt even logged in for 10 days and his post count hasnt climbed higher than it was then. It is still in the double digits. Its great that you think we should have let him in but putting people on the bench that wont be here is something that I will continue to reject out of hand. You want my support for the Bench prove that you wont disappear immediately by having been here for longer than 3 days.
Click to expand...
Please stop throwing Baldwin in my face! :lol:
 
I think perhaps we should be willing to give greater chances to those who have, if nothing else, proven their intelligence and activity, even if they have not angled specifically towards legal pursuits. I can understand the concerns with Phazon vis a vis his newness, given what happened in a very similar situation some months back, but should we have a comparative newcomer who nonetheless is talented and active for a sustained period, we should be willing to give them a chance. After Phazon has established his activity here, if re-nominated, I would recommend giving him that chance.
 
Activity is certainly a valid concern. I would note that all of the following comments were made on his nomination though:

Not to mention that it is HIGHLY unlikely that he knows jack about Europeian law. Every new justice does a little on the job learning but the court has neither the inclination nor the time to take someone on that has 0 experience.
Click to expand...
a Justice in this region needs to be someone with experience with our laws and activity within our region.
Click to expand...
we really need someone who can be active and knows the guts of European law.
Click to expand...
These are clearly all about Phazon's experience specifically in Europeian.

Furthermore, while Baldwin was raised there are here, there are significant differences. First, Baldwin's only evidence of experience was his own claims of being in law school. I don't believe he was lying, but it is still significantly different. Unlike Baldwin, Phazon had prior NS experience and a good reputation. Some were aware of his prior work, and even read it. Similarly with activity, he had a track record of NS activity and fulfilling commitments. In contrast, Baldwin was new to NS.

It may well have been the right decision not to confirm Phazon, but the reasoning is important. We should also be careful about equating actual activity to what would have happened. There is a huge difference in motivation between having just been confirmed to the Court and having been rejected the way Phazon was.



 
If I remember Baldwin more than proved his ability during the Senate questioning. And yes while I did repeatedly bring up Phazons not knowing anything at all about Europeian law my main point, illustrated as such by being mentioned first and putting a "not to mention" before the secondary point of his specific experience, was that he had been here at that point for 3 days and had a post count in the single digits.

As to the difference in motivation and between what happened and what could have happened, I am a big believer in someone having to prove themselves at least active first. We shouldnt put people into office and hope that the office keeps them active. We should put people who are active into offices and then hope that those people dont have a drastic shift in their activity. I bet on people staying the same, because betting on people to change is just asking to be disappointed.
 
Like I said, it may well have been the right decision based on activity, but reading the confirmation thread gives the impression that Euro-specific experience was at least as important in the decision. Another aspect to consider is what the alternatives are. We've had an empty seat on the Court for quite a while now. Hy will fill it shortly I expect, but he's already said that he only intends to serve for a few weeks, and then we'll have a vacancy again. Surely giving someone a chance who proves to be inactive and is removed is better than leaving a seat vacant.

I also don't want to miss the forest because of the trees here. Phazon's confirmation hearing can reasonably be explained in terms of activity, but he is an example rather than the point that Hy raised and I expanded on in this article. I believe that we do over-state the complexity of the system, and we have undoubtedly hit a point where we feel we only have a handful of candidates qualified to sit on the Court. That needs to be addressed, both through education and examining what are the true requirements of the role. Right now, we are in a situation where Presidents are having a hard time filling the Court, and there isn't really anyone on the region's radar as the next new Justice, let alone a full court's worth. This is not sustainable situation and we need to address it sooner rather than later.
 
I think all the comments about his activity and that he was here for only a short amount of time when he was nominated shouldn't even be a point at all because you can't tell into the future whether someone is going to be active and from what I can tell Phazon is a very active member in TCB,what we should be choosing them on is their skill and Phazon had that. On another note if you want to go down the inactivity route, Jusduckria was inactive for two years and within 6 days of their return they were nominated for AJ.
 
For the record, Phazon was also immediately up front about his upcoming vacations during his nomination. Only HEM and Shadowlurker asked about his judicial work in the TCB, and some very adamantly dismissed Phazon out of hand. Echoing Malashaan, this may have been the right move, it's hard to say for sure.

Following up on Zapper - it is also interesting to note that Senator Drecq took Jusdruckria at their word about being active, with minimal questioning. In comparison to the Phazon nomination, it could be seen as a bit hypocritical.

No one seems to question that Noto during his nomination made the comment on June 23rd:
I am 100% certian that, barring unforseen events, I will be able to be active enough to fulfill all duties required of a Justice.
Click to expand...
and yet was gone only a few weeks later. Even someone with known past activity and knowledge of Euro, that was well received by the Senators, ended up not being the right choice.

Personally, I find Europeian law and judicial history fascinating. I also have no desire to put myself out there because I know that I would still be too much of a greenhorn in some venerable members eyes. That's fine, even I know I have a lot to learn still. But if you don't start working and training the next generation, all you will end up with is a Bench that slowly dies as its veteran members leave one after the other.

We're not in crisis mode, and we don't have that much that has to go before the Court, so we can build up new legal experts.... but let's stop pretending that the Court is this unimpeachable ivory tower that jurisprudence flows from in cascades of brilliant wisdom.
 
I don't think it is unfair to at least expect activity to be established by a newcomer before we make them a Justice - and by that token, it has usually been acceptable to take an older member at their word when they return - but as I said above, specific legal experience is going to be lacking by nature, and we should be more accepting of that than we often have been.
 
I took Jus at his word because Jus had proven in the past in this region that he can remain active. Phazon might have proven that in his primary region but you cant assume that would translate here. And of course we have to look at past activity before we give someone a job. Past activity is the best predictor of future activity.
If you dont have a past get one. Its easy. Stay. Work in the Ministries. Stand for Senate. A couple of months later you should be ready for the Court. Dont come to me with:"I am active in another region and I know stuff about another regions laws."

PS.: Aside from that, you can be the greatest person ever, but that just isnt enough. And anyone that doesnt understand that you need some standing in a community to presume to sit on its highest court should reexamine what exactly it is the court does. A single Justice can ruin the Euro career of an until then exemplary person in the right conditions. I like to know the people I give that kind of power to for longer than 2 posts. If you arent willing to stay around for long enough to build up that kind of good will then the job isnt for you.
 
I don't disagree.

It's important that we trust in the knowledge and experience of our elected and appointed officials. We have to trust that our representatives have the wisdom to make good choices. We have to trust that our justices have the experience and critical thinking skills for sound judgment. And yes, that comes with time and being active and letting people see that aspect of your character.

But we also need to be willing to assist, to nurture, to develop individuals. While it is incredibly important that they take the first step forward to say: "Hey, I'm interested in this, what can I learn?" We can't just leave them searching for answers in the wilderness, we need to promote and offer insight, and speak of our own experiences, and in doing so - create a better system for everyone.
 
You were one of the people who were against his confirmation (Mal' quoted you in his first post).
 
hyanygo said:
You were one of the people who were against his confirmation (Mal' quoted you in his first post).
Click to expand...
Ah, yes that. Well I made a stupid decision and I thought that the best thing to do was to listen to the Chief Justice so I did that. After putting my own opinion on it that is what I thought.










 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top