We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Judicial Independence Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 4742
Description[?]:
| We should appoint our justices based on merit and experience, not naming judges who political views are in line with that of the head of state. Thus, we should establish independent judicial selection commission where we name a representative from all States in Beluzia to participate in. A list of senior, young, high ranking justices will be consulted, and at the end of this, a name will be picked and sent to the Minister of Justice for approval, rejection, or reconsideration. This is better than ideological appointments, where the head of state appoints someone who extends the head of state's influence long after they are gone. The judiciary must be politically independent, and it must be free from any political interference. We need rational, legal, moral and ethical decisions, not partisan, illogical, polarising decisions |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the appointment of judges/magistrates
Old value:: Judges/Magistrates are appointed by the head of state.
Current: Judges/Magistrates are appointed by an independent commission.
Proposed: Judges/Magistrates are appointed by an independent commission.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:32:53, April 15, 2020 CET | From | Beluzian National Union-Democratic Bloc | To | Debating the Judicial Independence Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, We think it is better if they get elected by the people. It will strengthen the democracy and integrity of the judiciary and things will become transparent. Though we think that the proposal of UBWP is better compared to the current law. Thank You. |
| Date | 21:48:35, April 15, 2020 CET | From | Beluzian Triumph League | To | Debating the Judicial Independence Act |
| Message | We agree with this and would vote yes |
| Date | 17:29:29, April 16, 2020 CET | From | Social democratic party | To | Debating the Judicial Independence Act |
| Message | Yes. This bill will make sure that there is absolutely no partisanship in courts. We also disagree with the BNUDB because elections can be partisan |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 428 | ||||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Culturally Open nations can adopt advisory/non-enforceable Nation Descriptions. See http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6242 |
| Random quote: "The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty. The activist is the man who cleans up the river." - Ross Perot |