THE GREAT DEBATE: CONCRETE CHANGE - THE LAST IN THE SERIES, AGAIN.
•
by olivermellors
okay, okay, i did say that the last piece was going to be the last. Then i remembered that i had rewritten the constitution a few times and might have something lying around. Here, therefore, is a concrete proposal for some change:
_____________________________
The judicial branch
39. The Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the Court of superior jurisdiction, of last resort and of general judicial review with plenary judicial jurisdiction. It will conduct its affairs with a view to the speedy, efficient, just and equitable resolution of all disputes.
40. The Court will be composed of five members, four of whom shall be styled “Justice” and a “Chief Justice”. If there are vacancies, the Court may continue to conduct its business and the President will immediately take steps necessary to fill the vacancies.
41. All members of the Court will be appointed by the President and confirmed by no less than 66% of those members of Congress voting on the appointment (abstentions not to be counted as members voting).
42. All members of the Court are tenured for life. A member may resign. A member may be removed by reason of illness or misconduct by majority vote of the remaining Justices.
43. All members of the Court serve without remuneration, subject only to any honorarium which may from time to time be granted by the Congress in its unfettered discretion.
44 (1) It is lawful for the Supreme Court of Canada to promulgate rules relating to its practice. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Court may provide for:
a) Procedures regulating how a request is started, adjudicated and enforced;
b) The persons who may appear and be heard by the court, including councel;
c) The procedure on appeals from inferior courts or tribunals;
d) The publication of decisions and proceedings;
e) The standards of conduct of its members, and persons appearing before it;
f) The composition of panels, including the establishment of single or multiple member panels for the hearing of urgent, interim or consent matters.
g) the receiving of evidence and argument;
h) the method by which decisions will be reached;
i) the respective duties of the Chief Justice and Associate Judges.
(2) In the absence of a specific rule, it is lawful for the Court and its members to proceed by reference to existing practice or analogy, guided by the principles of fairness and honesty.
45 The Chief Justice shall be responsible for the orderly operation of the Court’s functions.
46 It is lawful for the Chief Justice to petition the House or the Executive for supply, to receive and expend funds or assets, to establish organizations or entities necessary for the Court’s operations, to delegate responsibilities and generally to do anything required in the exercise of the duty impose by s. 45.
47 The Chief Justice will be chosen by the Justices from amongst themselves and will serve at pleasure.
48. It is lawful for the Congress to establish courts, tribunals or decision making bodies of inferior jurisdiction.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
"43. All members of the Court serve without remuneration, subject only to any honorarium which may from time to time be granted by the Congress in its unfettered discretion."
IMHO, it would be better to simply have a once per month (or whatever period you wish) stipend for services. This way, there are no surprise donations and less chance for accusations of bribery.
hmmmm...
a required payment sort of goes against the grain of "volonteerism" which is a tradition on the forum. The posibility of an honorarium i have inserted to deal with the future, if and when our forum and country is much larger and the court's business much more taxing. Any honorarium would be a congressional grant, thus subject to full debate. If we all adhere to the standard of honesty and good faith there is little chance of accusations of bribery. I will reflect on this further however. Thank you for your contribution.
Well, no one is talking about $4000 CAD or anything. The Justices don't do that good of a job (heh).
Considering the time required to fulfill the position with any level of competence, it only stands to reason there should be some compensation. After all, RL Judges get paid RL money. eJudges should be compensated with CAD.
That being said, having tenure for life would make regular stipends a little more interesting.
My instinct is that the judges not be paid - by stipend, or at all. People who volunteer to serve on the Court would be doing our team a service, and I don't underestimate the work involved, but giving them in-game money for it just doesn't strike me the right way - for one thing, what do they need with the in-game money? It's not like they can't get an in-game job like everyone else, just because they're a judge.
I say this within a context that I don't believe members of the Executive should be paid, either. You're taking on a job which presumably enhances your role on the team and your game play experience. What should pay have to do with it?
For the same rationale, I wouldn't pay elected members anything, but of course that's an in-game decision, so not my call.
Sorry, Tem, I corrected some spelling and now our posts are out of order.
What is it about "stipend for life" that makes me worried about abuse? Am I just too cynical?
Rigour6 for Supreme Justice!
yes, my instinct as well. comments on the rest? drafting? omissions? alternatives?
I think the qualities needed for a judge and the willingness to serve may make it hard to find a lot of bodies. That said, I wouldn't set a low limit on the size of the panel.
If you have appointments for life, there will be a tendency for people to want to resign their post if they are going to be less active, because they won't want to "jam up" the slot.
On the other hand, if we said the max is 9, we could draw from a panel for any given case based on availability.
I'd also think we should have a detailed process for appointment, and I'd like to see them confirmed by a congressional super-majority. As well as being open to a Congressional super-challenge. I say this with full knowledge of how flawed our democracy is, I just can't find an easily achievable alternative.
These extra spots would allow judges to go supernumerary if they desired.
draft already has appointment confirmed by supermajority of congress. I have wondered about "removal" by congressional impeachment. This particular draft doesn't include it but it is certainly worth discussion especially if the total bench is small. Finding justices has been a challenge in the past. A bench of nine might be workable. But i think we have to make clear what you have seen in the draft and referred to namely the use of "panels" of much less than nine to hear cases. You are right to see that possibility in the Court's new power to determine almost everything about its practice, including the number of judges sitting on a panel for trials.
Since there is no retirement age i suppose judges can't really go supernumerary, but i understand what you mean: Relatively inactive, available sporadically, not placed on a specific panel etc.
great contribution. thanx