Gerlach Court (Makko Oko): Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
}} | }} | ||
The '''Gerlach Court''' was the period in the history of the [[Supreme Court of Makko Oko]] from 2023 to 2027, when [[Edgar Gerlach]] served as [[Chief Justice of Makko Oko]]. Gerlach was the 2nd Chief Justice of the court after the end of the [[Civil Transition War]], succeeding [[Kimberly Giddens]] after her kidnapping and later reported death. He was also the first Chief Justice to have been appointed while being an Associate Justice in Makkonian history. The Gerlach Court was considered to be a more extreme point in the court's history, having more conservative rulings overall than the [[Giddens Court]], even though the only change to the composition was the removal of a single liberal justice. An example of a conservative ruling that historians argue would not have happened under the Giddens Court is [[MNU v. Makko Oko]], because they cite that under Giddens' leadership, the conservative justices were swayed to vote with her instead of against her, with Giddens during her tenure citing a "united front" and repudiating division. | The '''Gerlach Court''' was the period in the history of the [[Supreme Court of Makko Oko]] from 2023 to 2027, when [[Edgar Gerlach]] served as [[Chief Justice (Makko Oko)|Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Makko Oko]]. Gerlach was the 2nd Chief Justice of the court after the end of the [[Civil Transition War]], succeeding [[Kimberly Giddens]] after her kidnapping and later reported death. He was also the first Chief Justice to have been appointed while being an Associate Justice in Makkonian history. The Gerlach Court was considered to be a more extreme point in the court's history, having more conservative rulings overall than the [[Giddens Court]], even though the only change to the composition was the removal of a single liberal justice. An example of a conservative ruling that historians argue would not have happened under the Giddens Court is [[MNU v. Makko Oko]], because they cite that under Giddens' leadership, the conservative justices were swayed to vote with her instead of against her, with Giddens during her tenure citing a "united front" and repudiating division. | ||
The Gerlach Court was known for consistency in ideology and rulings, up until the landmark [[Vanita_Marissen_v._Ministry_of_Diplomatic_Affairs_et_al._(Makko_Oko)|Vanita Marissen v. Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs et al.]] case that abolished slavery in the nation. The case was a major step towards the left after a case four years prior under the Giddens Court that affirmed the legality of slavery. Historians say that Gerlach overstepped his authority on multiple occasions and ruled past what the case was actually inquiring about, in a way to help advance his own agenda. | The Gerlach Court was known for consistency in ideology and rulings, up until the landmark [[Vanita_Marissen_v._Ministry_of_Diplomatic_Affairs_et_al._(Makko_Oko)|Vanita Marissen v. Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs et al.]] case that abolished slavery in the nation. The case was a major step towards the left after a case four years prior under the Giddens Court that affirmed the legality of slavery. Historians say that Gerlach overstepped his authority on multiple occasions and ruled past what the case was actually inquiring about, in a way to help advance his own agenda. | ||
Revision as of 22:57, 25 July 2024
| Gerlach Court | |
|---|---|
 | |
| October 19th, 2023 – October 15th, 2027 3 years, 361 days | |
| Seat | Supreme Court Building Opposh, NT |
| No. of positions | 6 |
The Gerlach Court was the period in the history of the Supreme Court of Makko Oko from 2023 to 2027, when Edgar Gerlach served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Makko Oko. Gerlach was the 2nd Chief Justice of the court after the end of the Civil Transition War, succeeding Kimberly Giddens after her kidnapping and later reported death. He was also the first Chief Justice to have been appointed while being an Associate Justice in Makkonian history. The Gerlach Court was considered to be a more extreme point in the court's history, having more conservative rulings overall than the Giddens Court, even though the only change to the composition was the removal of a single liberal justice. An example of a conservative ruling that historians argue would not have happened under the Giddens Court is MNU v. Makko Oko, because they cite that under Giddens' leadership, the conservative justices were swayed to vote with her instead of against her, with Giddens during her tenure citing a "united front" and repudiating division.
The Gerlach Court was known for consistency in ideology and rulings, up until the landmark Vanita Marissen v. Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs et al. case that abolished slavery in the nation. The case was a major step towards the left after a case four years prior under the Giddens Court that affirmed the legality of slavery. Historians say that Gerlach overstepped his authority on multiple occasions and ruled past what the case was actually inquiring about, in a way to help advance his own agenda.
Membership
Membership on the court was stagnant for the entire period, staying at six justices. The results after some rulings were the public calling for more justices to be appointed by the Emperor, however these calls went ignored and unfulfilled until the end of the Gerlach Court when the Mauer Court would begin, adding five new justices to the court, bringing the number up to 9.
Other Branches
Council sessions during this court included the 2nd through the 6th sessions.
Rulings of the Court
Judicial Philosophy
Gerlach was biased for industry, and any cases that could potentially damage the economy's power or the rich's wealth were more often than not interpreted in such a way by him that they were safe, even at the expense of others. Being an institutionalist, Gerlach was a powerful voice in multiple cases including in State v. Rochelle where he, along with five other justices, ruled that a suspected terrorist still had a constitutional right to citizenship and could not be overridden by the government. In other cases however, Gerlach has ruled with an iron fist, such as in State v. Charles Adkins where he ruled for the state to protect industry interests.
According to former staffers during this court, Gerlach was unable to mobilize support among his colleagues and was unable to convince them to rule in his way, leading to more split and non-unanimous judgements during this period when compared to the Giddens Court, with one such case being Rebecca Holman v. Makko Oko which was an important ruling that would have determined if abortion restrictions were unconstitutional.
See Also
