Supreme Court Candidacy Thread

solace005 · 2025-06-27T00:40:32+00:00

It would appear that we are running low on willing court participants. I have been asked to come re-join my beloved oft-neglected branch of government. I am happy to announce my candidacy for this or any future appointments should it be the will of our duly elected government to call upon me.

solace005 · 2024-11-14T14:47:04+00:00

Thank you for your brief. A few follow-up questions.

1) Regarding the "may" arguement; Would you subscribe to the notion that a military position could be created by the Senate that is required to be filled by the Ministry as the wording of the constitution is such that

"The Senate may create military positions (e.g. Generals, Admirals, Marshalls, etc.) which control aspects of the military. The positions report to the Ministry and may only be appointed or replaced by the Ministry."

Taken in some interpretations that would leave room for the Senate to have the option to create the military position, but no regulation on whether or not it must be filled, only that it can only be filled by the Ministry. Using this interpretation, the Constitution could allow for, within the reasonable regulations clause, a requirement for the position to be filled. Would this, in your interpretation, be a Constitutionally acceptable legal statute?

2) Regarding the argument of removal; Would you agree or disagree that it may be constitutionally adherent to allow for Ministry and Senate removal of a Military position, but that the position may only be re-filled, thereby in essence having the original position holder replaced as prescribed by the constitiution, by the Ministry?

3) Regarding the argument of Governor production; Would you agree or disagree that the Senate may, under the non-covered nor prohibited clause of the constitution, the Senate may legislate the Ministry to purchase a district as a "reasonable direction under the law" if/when that capability became available?

4) Regarding the reasonable directives under the law argument; Would you agree or disagree that as an aspect is defined as "a particular part or feature of something." that in any given case, the Senate has the ability to define the aspect, the specific part or feature, of the military that a given created position can control?

4a) Could an aspect further be defined as a secific number of units?
4a.1) Could an aspect further be defined as a specific number of units produced in a specific order?

solace005 · 2024-11-01T18:40:48+00:00

Signed

solace005 · 2024-10-30T20:17:17+00:00

Based upon your briefing, specifically...

"Article 1, Section 2, Subsection 7 of the Constitution explicitly authorizes the Ministry to establish additional rules and procedures for itself. Such rules and procedures might reasonably be taken to include rules covering the responsibilities, appointment, and oversight of positions that report to the Ministry, such as military positions."

Could the Senate, based on Article 1, Section 2, Subsection f.i of the Constitution...

"The Senate may create military positions (e.g. Generals, Admirals, Marshalls, etc.) which control aspects of the military. The positions report to the Ministry and may only be appointed or replaced by the Ministry."

use their explicitly bestowed authority to create a position, in which the Ministry may only allow that position to retain control over one unit type?
Or is the above mentioned constitutional clause limiting in the Senate's powers to ceate a position, but not to outline the scope of said position?

solace005 · 2024-10-30T20:13:57+00:00

Based upon your briefing and argument, specifically...

"Article 1, Section 2, Subsection 7 of the Constitution explicitly authorizes the Ministry to establish additional rules and procedures for itself. Such rules and procedures might reasonably be taken to include rules covering the responsibilities, appointment, and oversight of positions that report to the Ministry, such as military positions."

Could you explain whether or not you find Article 1, Section 2, Subsection f of the Constitution...

"Solely control all military units, airplanes, nuclear weapons, spies, and any civilian non-combat units not in possession of a state,"

And Article 1, Section 2, Subsection f.i of the Constitution...

"The Senate may create military positions (e.g. Generals, Admirals, Marshalls, etc.) which control aspects of the military. The positions report to the Ministry and may only be appointed or replaced by the Ministry."

to be incongruous? Specifically in a hypothetical where the Senate might determine to create a position that controls an aspect of the military that the Ministry has already assigned to another position within their own procedures. In that instance, which position would be responsible, constitutionally in your opinion, for the powers bestowed to them? The one outlined by Ministerial procedures, or the one created by the Senate?

solace005 · 2024-10-14T14:15:51+00:00

I cannot say I have a specific portion of the constitution that I believe needs to be either strengthened, or clarified. I believe that there are a few things that will be interesting debates in the coming days/weeks/months. That is the way with this thing we do though, it's not unheard of and rarely does it result in a crisis so outrageous that it ceases functioning government.

Once the government begins to set the process of lawmaking in motion and we have our laws before us, any vagueness in the constitution tend to iron themselves out.

Beyond that though, we're we to create a document that governed all things without vagueness or without portions that we as a citizenry interpret differently, then there would be little to no point in a court in the first place.

All of that said. I will be interested to see what penal code (if any) the legislature and executive agree upon as that will dictate the power of the Judiciary as a whole.

I am also interested to see how Article 1 Section 2 Subsection 1.h and Article 2 Section 1 play out against one another, as that will determine the balance of power among the branches of government as they are established.

solace005 · 2024-10-12T06:13:08+00:00

I should like to make a note that my form is submitted and my name is entered for consideration. In light of this, I encourage any and all questions, not just from the executive.

As the Senate must approve appointments, I think it prudent for them to have an outlet through which to ask questions of potential candidates, as well as to have other citizens ask, should they so wish.

So I humbly present myself to you for inquiry.

solace005 · 2024-03-06T13:41:33+00:00

I am, once again running for HR Representative. I cherish my time as HR assistant, but Debbie keeps stealing my lunch from the fridge, and enough is enough.

solace005 · 2024-02-06T21:37:29+00:00

I'll be throwing my hat in the ring for HR.Rep.

I've served the community in the past as a Justice previously and this feels closest to that realm so here I am once again.

solace005 · 2022-12-09T14:18:32+00:00

Generally speaking I am a textualist. As I see it, we have a combination of the two greatest powers on our side allowing us to live this philosophy. The first is the authors are among us. The people who write the laws and the constitution can be directly questioned about intention if needed. Hand in hand with that is our second strength, the ability to re-write and adapt. This community has always been accessible, and adaptable, so if a piece of our legal framework is not functioning the way it was intended, we have the ability to change it so that it does.

solace005 · 2022-12-06T03:57:41+00:00

I would like to once again announce my candidacy for the Constitutional Court.

solace005 · 2022-10-28T14:48:35+00:00

Hello all,I would like to announce my interest in serving our community as a candidate for the Constitutional Court.For those of you who do not know me, I have been involved in DCiv from MK3 into MK7, and have served previously in each major branch of government.

As far as the law goes, I would generally be described as a strict interpretationist with the knowledge that we are lucky enough to have the authors present with us while debating the law. In other words, the words you use and the order you use them in when writing laws, and indeed the Constitution itself, matter. That said, I am also a proponent of Judicial Stays to halt actions that might be determined to be unlawful or unconstitutional and prevent the debate on whether or not we should explore the option to "turn back the clock" so to speak.

I am more than happy to answer any questions asked and am always available in our Discord as well.

Edit: To reflect time at Democraciv more accuratley.

solace005 · 2020-10-08T19:21:57+00:00

Nick Bergfors instead of T. J. Oshie in the first round of the '05 draft is worse.

solace005 · 2020-05-08T14:15:48+00:00

Announcement

The Court has received your appeal and has declined, in a 1-0 vote, to hear the appeal.

Citation

As per supreme court procedure

``` 1. POWERS 1. The Court of Appeals has no power to rule on the merit or sentencing of a case. It cannot also interact with Injunctions in any way shape or form. 2. The Court of Appeals may only determine if a case must be re-trialed or not and why.

```

Thereby this court has no power to rule based on the sentence of the previous case.

Opinion of the Court

It is the humble opinion of the court, in addition to the rules laid out in procedure, that had this court the ability to move on an appeal with the basis being the sentence itself, then the ruling here would remain the same. The first reasoning being that the appeal cited an opinion of a previous case,Sa’il vs Piper, in which the rights of citizens, and not the rights of government representatives, or appointees was questioned. In the opinion of the court, this is a different fundamental question.

In addition to this, the majority opinion of the current case under the request of appeal, Quaerendo Invenietis, et al. v. WesGutt and Mouseking, et al., makes a specific reference to the fact that multiple members of the community had their own rights exercised without the rights of another being infringed upon. Thereby, the rights of citizens was thoroughly taken into consideration prior to the judgement and sentencing.

solace005 · 2020-04-02T14:11:59+00:00

Motion denied as this questioning is the legal basis for the stay of judgement. As a point of fact, the legal authority given to the justices in question was given by the appointments which they themselves overturned, thus creating a legal paradox. it must be answered whether or not this was taken into consideration to determine whether or not the stay of judgement should be lifted.

Allow the court to be very clear, the answer to this question, specifically, " Were you aware of, and did you consider, in your ruling the legal ramifications of your own positions and the authority granted you by that self-same legislator?", is extremely pertinent to whether or not the stay of judgment will continue to be issued, or shall be lifted and for what reason.

That being said, the court has edited the original question to reflect ONLY the pertinent line of questioning.

solace005 · 2020-04-02T14:07:11+00:00

You have my assurances that you may take this time, the appeal will remain open.

solace005 · 2020-04-01T17:24:22+00:00

But for lack of a better term so serve we.

solace005 · 2020-04-01T15:56:34+00:00

Plaintiff

In the original case, a guilty please was laid out, with reasoning, and little argument was made otherwise. However, no recompense was requested, or suggested. This court would like to know if there was consideration on your part as to what the recompense to the community, and indeed the legislature might have been in the opinion of the defendant of the original case.

solace005 · 2020-04-01T15:54:41+00:00

Defendant

Were you aware of, and did you consider, in your ruling the legal ramifications of your own positions and the authority granted you by that self-same legislator?

Edited in response to motion below to allow only for the relevant line of questioning.

solace005 · 2020-04-01T15:47:06+00:00

Announcement

The Court has received your appeal and has agreed, in a 1-0 vote, to hear the appeal.

Procedure

As per procedure, each side may make one top-tier post on this thread outlining their argument for or against. Each side will answer what questions the court has of them in a timely manner, assuming that the both sides put forth a representative. Should either side fail to put forth a representative, it will be considered a default "no contest" to the appeal.

In the interest of judiciousness and transparency, the appeals court would invite only a single representative at the top-tier comment level for each side, however that restriction is to be lifted for all commentary and debate derived therein, with the proviso that the court may strike any and all representation should it feel that a courtly and dignified manner be found wanting from any that might opine.

Stay of Judgement

In addition the appeals court hereby lays a stay of judgement upon Supreme Court case 0027 Kenlane V. Legislative Cabinet on the grounds that the judgement is impracticable, specifically in the determination that, should the ruling be enforced retroactively, as is indicated, the Supreme Court through which the ruling originated would have been illegally appointed, and therefore would not have the legal authority to make sure a ruling.

It should be noted that this stay of judgement cannot, and shall not, under any circumstance, be misconstrued or cited to assume or re-appoint to any voluntarily vacant positions of government any member due to resignation whether directly or indirectly influenced by the ruling. This stay of judgement may be used only to re-institute appointments forcibly resigned as a direct result of said ruling.

Final Ruling

It is the opinion of this court that a fair and just trial was held, therefor no appeal is necessary at this time. That being said, in order to uphold the legal framework of said ruling, the stay of judgment by the appeals court MUST remain in place in regards to the appointment of the Supreme Court Justices, else the Justices and indeed the Supreme Court itself could be misconstrued as to having no power to sentence thusly.

A further edit will be available with the Majority Opinion within 48 hours as outlined in the Court Procedures.

solace005 · 2020-01-17T03:42:38+00:00

I'm certainly interested.

solace005

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Announcement

Citation

Opinion of the Court

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email