Confirmation Hearing: TJ for Justice

[TJ in Oregon]

What qualifications does the nominee bring with him? Why does he think he is the best choice for the job? 

I have previously served as a regional legislator, senator, Mideast Judge, and governor. As a judge I wrote two major decisions on Mideast constitutional issues and issued several other orders in cases that were eventually dropped. I have also argued multiple cases before the Mideast Superior Court. In rendering opinions and in my performance as Mideast Governor, which entails making decisions on legislation and appointments as well as conducting elections, I believe I have a track record of making decisions thoroughly and fairly and applying the law equally regardless of would be favored by a particular outcome. If confirmed to the Supreme Court, I will continue to do so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First I think it is important to recognize that being a judge is a fundamentally different type of position than being a governor or a legislator. A judge's job is not to decide whether a law is good or bad, or whether a particular law is desirable, only to decide the case at hand based on its legal merits. As for my activity, I would not view the Supreme Court as a retirement. I think my past record of consistent activity demonstrates that I would give a future effort.

If confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, I would contribute to every case before the Court. I do think that as a Supreme Court Justice, it would be improper for me to delve deeply into policy arguments at the federal level that could potentially come before the Court. I would, however, continue to contribute in ways that ordinary citizens within the game contribute, such as voting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In Аverroës vs. TNF, I would have ruled with the majority that the PPT cannot cast an additional tie-breaking vote in the case that he is also acting President of the Senate.

In People of the Republic of Atlasia v. Alfred F. Jones, I agree, obviously, that Alfred Jones broke the law in starting a secession movement; however, I do think the sentence was a little harsh for a crime that does not directly harm the game in the same manner as voter fraud or voter intimidation. Given the precedent in the Hifly case, the sentence was in line with previous rulings, so I certainly cannot fault the Court or being unfair.

[TJ in Oregon]

Well, how do you interpret the new amendment regarding guns?

I interpret the new amendment as meaning that a person has a general right to own and carry guns and that right is subject to reasonable regulation. This right is a general right, meaning absent some particular, specific reason why an individual would not be allowed to procure a gun, there must be an legal way for that individual to purchase a gun. The regulations, provided their intent is not to effectively forbid gun ownership, can be determined legislatively.

[TJ in Oregon]

What is your opinion as a potential judge on judicial term limits and your view of how they would impact judge's opinions if at all?

First, I recognize that the Atlasian Supreme Court is fundamentally different than other bodies that have terms with no length limit in that an individual's "life" in the game can far exceed the length of time an individual would be able to serve in real life. From that point of view, term limits make sense as a policy. The downside, as the second half of your question implies, is that it leaves the potential for a Justice to be pressured into ruling in a particular way in the hopes of re-appointment or another position when his term expires or blackmail, or any number of potential conflicts of interest. As a judge, this issue is not one I would have any authority to control and the balancing of the pros and cons I have listed are thus left primarily to others.

Personally, if ever feel pressured to rule in a certain way for political favors, I would, if possible, recuse myself from the case, and if not possible, I would resign.

[TJ in Oregon]

Would you describe yourself as 'pro-labor', in a general sense?

As a matter of legislative policy, yes I would consider my views to be generally 'pro-labor'. However, as with any other political issue or set of issues, my job as a judge would not be to determine policy and I would not enter a case with a preconceived idea that either side of a labor dispute is automatically correct but instead decide each case on its merits.

[TJ in Oregon]

I would like to thank the Senate for their time and vote of confidence.