[img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img]
Dear Chief Justice Alneyan (May He Serve Wisely!):
Quote:
Alneyan said:
What is the point of exalted positions, if you cannot abuse your power? Nobody would want them otherwise!
|
If I remember correctly, wasn't that Louis XVI's philosophy?
Concerning the case law that you cite, Pasha v. World, Maine v. France, Dawg v. State, my reading of those cases is that the Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff (i.e., Pasha, Maine and Dawg) in all of them. Therefore, I am not quite certain that they are on point or support your argument.
Surely, the Court would agree that judicial restraint is the primary basis for allowing the judiciary to serve for life, but that if any particular judge disregards the necessity of such restraint, then he or she can be removed for abuse of office.
Lord Pasha,
Divine Pretender and Council Wyrm for the Magnificent Dominion of Ulm
[img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon22.gif[/img]