[AG] Judicial Ruling: Judicial Impeachments
![Canada](http://www.erepublik.net/images/flags_png/S/Canada.png)
Kilgore Trout 89
![](http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/KilgoreTrout89/gbmbanner2.png)
At the end of March, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in accordance with the new eCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our new Constitution) Supreme Court Justices “are tenured for life” however specified that “A member may be removed by reason of illness, inactivity or misconduct”. Initially this decision caused a reaction from Congress and questions arose regarding how a Justice may be removed. In response, Congress started a debate that would lead a Constitutional amendment imposing limits on Judicial terms.
![](http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/KilgoreTrout89/gbmdiv.png)
On April 9th, the Court took another step towards Judicial reform and began a discussion on how and when a Judge could be removed. Several days ago, a final decision was reached by the courts. A full explanation of the decision can be found beginning with this post on the eCan forums however, in the interest of simplicity, I will provide a much shorter explanation for the public. The primary point of significance is that the courts have decided that because Congress appoints Justices, Congress also has the ability to impeach a Court Justice at any time after a debate and a vote. The court has requested that before such a debate begins that Congress notify the Chief Justice so the Supreme Court has the opportunity to remove the individual in question without Congressional intervention. Furthermore, in the event that a non-Congressional member of the public would like to have a Justice removed, they are free to contact the Attorney General or Chief Justice to begin the process.
![](http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/KilgoreTrout89/gbmdiv.png)
Citizens should note that no solid requirements have been put in place to determine whether a Justice is inactive or has committed an act of misconduct. Instead, Justices are to be held to a duty of honesty and good faith. This is to say that any behavior, even if it is not explicitly written down that threatens the integrity of the Court qualify as a grounds for investigation. This is of course an over simplification of the decision and I encourage any interested citizens to read the full explanation. Over all, the decision has been a popular one. No Justice has of yet spoken against it and congress has not only agreed to the terms but have in fact withdrawn the Constitutional amendment that would impose limits.
![](http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/KilgoreTrout89/gbmdiv.png)
As Attorney General, I would like to invite any citizen who believes a Supreme Court Justice should be recused from their position to contact me in writing with their explanation.
![](http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/KilgoreTrout89/gbmdiv.png)
![](http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/KilgoreTrout89/kilgorebanner.png)
Comments
sneaky sneaky penguin gets first
tenured for life
what a joke
Impeached at a moment's notice though Pimp. Now we can have some parliamentary oversight.
Yeah, pimp, I know it does seem like the court just decided to give itself permanent seats but the real deal is that we just interpreted what the new Constitution literally says, rather than impose a length of term we decide would happen to sound right. I'm okay with Congress ammending what is currently written on it, so long as they find a way to encourage the continuity of the court. Same for 'impeaching' a Justice, so long as it happens with the right precautions and enough time to clarify the real problem before pushing teh button.
No, the joke is that we have a court system to begin with. It needs to be gotten rid of. No other country takes RP to the extremes that we do. It's quite silly, actually, and there are no direct mechanics in game that it links to.
Do us all a favour and lose the bloody, useless thing already.
It's mainly relevant to forum masking and access, and less so (or hardly at all) about in-game enforcement. That's why you no longer have CAF masking, pimp. The Constitution and its many mechanisms like the SC tend to regulate a part of what happens in the forums, which may or may not have some impact on what happens in the game. eRep does not require a period of debate for Congressional proposals, yet one made in-game without the right forum process does tend to fail. Where are the direct mechanics in that?
Needz exponentially moar role-playing. This game couldn't survive if we were to merely play it based on in-game stuff. That's how bad it is.
Nice straw man Pluggy. Your argument only works if our Forums have absolutely nothing to do with this game.
If you don't think this game has anything to do with the forums, we might as well have our discussions on 4chan.
Now, do you want your cake, or do you want to eat it?
So, you admit that forums have something to do with the game? If so, then the forum rules that determine which Congress proposals get approved do have a kind of mechanical effect on what happens in-game. Now, there are mechanisms that also determine who gets access to things in the forum (like Congress and CAF masking). Because of things that happen on the forum, your access to these are blocked.
Now, it is still possible for you to make a Congress proposal that can get voted "Yes" by the majority of Congress or even receive supplies from the CAF. I'm not saying the Supreme Court can govern any of that by direct mechanics. Nevertheless, it does still seem to have some influence over your masking, which can have a direct affect on how (un)likely your in-game Congress proposal will be approved or if you will be able to show up for roll call in the forums.
Like I've said a million times, the forums are to discuss things that have a mechanical basis in game, such as congressional and war decisions. Anything else is superfluous.
I would like you to find for me the percentage of countries in this game that use a "supreme court" to the lengths that we do.
Go.
This is the most exciti..ng art....icle...I...zzzzzzzz
Yes, well I can agree with you there. The SC is an add-on that we should be able to function without. The rules here are so basic that they shouldn't require that much intepretation or enforcement.
Sorry Kilgore I jest
Like the CAF, TCO ect ect, if it keeps peeps playing in eCanada then who is anyone to question the existence of one portion of RP from another, improve it sure, but of people are interested in it, go to it.
Crisfire, you've figured out why we have the courts. I know that I for one am incredibly bored with the military and political RP stuff right now which is why I'm working as Attorney General and dealing with the legal RP stuff. I think that the legal system we have has the potential to be a thriving RP activity and my goal as AG is to open it up to as many people as possible.
Role-playing is the only redeeming feature of this game.
❤️ >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=%64%61%74%65%34%66%75%71%2e%63%6f%6d%231759090
❤️ >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=%64%61%74%65%34%66%75%71%2e%63%6f%6d%231759090