Embassy of the South Pacific

[KhanterWinters]

Soulsian News Network: Posting TSP news because TSP won't.

I do expect see more of SNN, also like a new thread.... or dispatches...

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

To add, because I missed something -

We have decided that Cabinet Advisers should fill a defined support role, providing something that the cabinet lacks. As such, we have decided to appoint Sandaoguo as an Advisor. He will be tasked with providing the cabinet with a detailed and experienced look on security, as his knowledge of that area is unmatched by any other individual in the region. His role will be officially titled 'Security Advisor' and he will be tasked with bringing any unknown security issues the cabinet should be aware of to our attention, as well as advising the cabinet on how best to handle these issues with both his extensive knowledge and experience in dealing with cases of this type.

Additionally, we have decided to appoint Amerion as a Cabinet Intern during this term. The Cabinet has determined that Amerion has brought a lot to the region in his short time here, proving himself beyond capable in a numerous amount of areas. We all agree that Amerion could be an excellent leader in TSP in whatever ministry or facet of the government he chose to pursue. In his position as Cabinet Intern, he will have access to everywhere cabinet advisors would and he will be tasked with educating himself on the functions and processes of a working and efficient Cabinet so that hopefully he can find himself in a Cabinet position by the next election cycle. Additionally he shall be tasked with helping The Cabinet decide policy on issues so as to help him learn in a more hands on way.

There are several examples of veteran members holding two, three, or sometimes even four major positions across the region. This is unacceptable for a number of reasons

I called Serres on Glen with this -

However, this is about the extent to which this announcement meets that goal, and others made.

First off, following Glen's loss 21-10 in Cabinet elections, the next paragraph deigns to give this CRS member, Forum Admin, and Intelligence Coordinator a pseudo-Cabinet position anyways.

- but failed to mention that Amerion, for better or worse, is also (less egregiously) guilty in the same regard. He just won the seat of Chair of the Assembly, and while this result was declared after the Cabinet announcement, it had been clear for 3 days prior to it that he was running unopposed. While this is, to be clear, not something inherently bad, and carries less negative impact than Glen's similar appointment for several reasons, it still runs contrary to the clear campaign goal of avoiding "members holding two, three, sometimes even four major positions across the region."

Why make these appointments that run directly contrary to your campaign goals, feeding the situation you described as "unacceptable for a number of reasons," Serres?

[Cormactopia Prime]

I guess I'm wondering why we're supposed to automatically accept the premise that Cabinet Adviser and Cabinet Intern are the equivalent of Cabinet Minister. Seems to me that the difference is obvious. Cabinet Advisers advise, Cabinet Interns assist and learn, and Cabinet Ministers make the actual Cabinet decisions. Most regions have executive advisers and trainees, honestly, it's just it's usually structured differently or perhaps more informal.

Neither position should be regarded as a "major position," from what I can tell, so I don't see the contradiction with Serres' platform.

Seems like a lot being made of a little. Much like most of what's being directed toward TSP these days.

[RiderSyl]

I guess I'm wondering why we're supposed to automatically accept the premise that Cabinet Adviser and Cabinet Intern are the equivalent of Cabinet Minister. Seems to me that the difference is obvious. Cabinet Advisers advise, Cabinet Interns assist and learn, and Cabinet Ministers make the actual Cabinet decisions. Most regions have executive advisers and trainees, honestly, it's just it's usually structured differently or perhaps more informal.

Neither position should be regarded as a "major position," from what I can tell, so I don't see the contradiction with Serres' platform.

Seems like a lot being made of a little. Much like most of what's being directed toward TSP these days.

I'm honestly surprised that you don't understand this.

What's the basis for believing Glen-Rhodes will treat his role purely as an advisory one? What's the basis for believing the TSP Cabinet will make sure he doesn't overstep his boundaries and start acting more like a Cabinet Minister? There is no basis for believing either. Glen might as well be in the Cabinet. Hell, with how incompetent the system in TSP has shown itself to be over such a prolonged period of time, interns will more than likely overstep their boundaries without reprimand too.

[Roavin]

First off, following Glen's loss 21-10 in Cabinet elections, the next paragraph deigns to give this CRS member, Forum Admin, and Intelligence Coordinator a pseudo-Cabinet position anyways. Further, his task there is an extension of one publicly and repeatedly failed, in a manner acknowledged just recently by this very cabinet. Not only was he largely responsible alongside Roavin for a member of the previous cabinet being frivolously shadow-banned from cabinet policy-making via exclusion of Islands of Unity from a cabinet chat for reason of being "a security risk," [...]

Glen had nothing to do with the Islands situation, he found out when everybody else did, and in fact by and large had disagreed with my opinion on Islands almost from the beginning. This is all demonstrable. Then there is, of course, what Cormac posted, which is absolutely correct.

Not a good start for SNN's reputation. South Pacifican water does not, in fact, turn the frogs gay.

[RiderSyl]

And while we're on the topic... When was the last time TSP had a Cabinet "Adviser"?

[Roavin]

And while we're on the topic... When was the last time TSP had a Cabinet "Adviser"?

Tsunamy was a Senior Advisor during my three PM terms.

Unless, of course, you were making a dig at the spelling, in which case I should point out that both are correct.

[Glen-Rhodes]

For someone who’s been on his soapbox about being falsely accused of things by TSP, you’d think Souls would do the bare minimum fact checking before he accuses me of controlling the members of a group DM I was never in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

For someone who’s been on his soapbox about being falsely accused of things by TSP, you’d think Souls would do the bare minimum fact checking before he accuses me of controlling the members of a group DM I was never in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So you're saying you, the intelligence coordinator, had absolutely no role in a cabinet member being declared enough of a security threat to be excluded from some cabinet matters, as per cabinet member Somy?

And also that current cabinet member Roavin lied when he said:

On not sharing the suspicions about IoU: These weren't my suspicions alone, and the explanation I gave yesterday weren't post hoc but rather talked to with regional security people contemporaneously. Pretty much any CRS person as well as multiple other tenured members of the region can confirm this

...you being "regional security people," a "CRS member," and for that matter, an "other tenured member of the region?"

[Cormactopia Prime]

For someone who’s been on his soapbox about being falsely accused of things by TSP, you’d think Souls would do the bare minimum fact checking before he accuses me of controlling the members of a group DM I was never in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So you're saying you, the intelligence coordinator, had absolutely no role in a cabinet member being declared enough of a security threat to be excluded from some cabinet matters, as per cabinet member Somy?

Did I miss something, or haven't we already established that was a decision Roavin made because he established the group DM in question?

And also that current cabinet member Roavin lied when he said:

On not sharing the suspicions about IoU: These weren't my suspicions alone, and the explanation I gave yesterday weren't post hoc but rather talked to with regional security people contemporaneously. Pretty much any CRS person as well as multiple other tenured members of the region can confirm this

...you being "regional security people," a "CRS member," and for that matter, an "other tenured member of the region?"

Glen is all of those things, but Roavin never said he spoke to every CRS member, every regional security person, or every "tenured member of the region." Maybe Glen wasn't available at the time. Maybe Roavin didn't consult him because he's on the judiciary and might have needed to hear a case about it. Maybe he just forgot. There are plenty of plausible explanations other than either of them lying. You really need to stop grasping at straws.

It's kind of absurd that I'm banned from TSP for treason and I'm essentially an enemy of the state, yet I can be reasonable about this stuff and you can't.

[RiderSyl]

It's kind of absurd that I'm banned from TSP for treason and I'm essentially an enemy of the state, yet I can be reasonable about this stuff and you can't.

What's absurd is that you're still giving TSP the benefit of the doubt.

[Malphe]

It's kind of absurd that I'm banned from TSP for treason and I'm essentially an enemy of the state, yet I can be reasonable about this stuff and you can't.

What's absurd is that you're still giving TSP the benefit of the doubt.

Don't deny that some of the stuff that has been going on in TSP looks shady but even Cormac is being more rational about that this than you right now. Do you have evidence for the accusations you're supporting, or do you just refuse to believe anything TSP says irrespective of the contents? Is it inconceivable that TSP could be telling the truth, is it logical to always assume the worst?

[RiderSyl]

Don't deny that some of the stuff that has been going on in TSP looks shady but even Cormac is being more rational about that this than you right now.

Not really.

Do you have evidence for the accusations you're supporting, or do you just refuse to believe anything TSP says irrespective of the contents?

I think that Glen very badly losing an election for the Cabinet, it being propped up as some sort of proof that TSP is truly a representative democracy, and then Glen getting a say in the Cabinet anyway is a fair basis for not buying what TSP is trying to sell. Do I have evidence for the accusation that TSP's regional government won't ensure Glen-Rhodes sticks to his role, or for the accusation that Glen-Rhodes himself won't stick to his role? I'm not spying on TSP's internal affairs, so other than an obvious pattern of behavior that clearly suggests what I'm saying to be true, no, there's no 'evidence'.

If anyone here has hard evidence one way or the other on this topic, proving or disproving what I'm talking about here, then I'd love to see it. Until then, we're all giving our opinions.

Is it inconceivable that TSP could be telling the truth, is it logical to always assume the worst?

Lately, yes, on both counts.

[Glen-Rhodes]

So you're saying you, the intelligence coordinator, had absolutely no role in a cabinet member being declared enough of a security threat to be excluded from some cabinet matters, as per cabinet member Somy?

Islands was never “declared a security threat.” The exact opposite happened, actually. I received multiple messages of people being suspicious of Islands. I found them lacking merit, and so did the rest of the CRS during our very brief discussion of it.

Roavin, from my understanding, created a DM group with the Cabinet as a private citizen. I was not a part of that group. It was not an officially sanctioned government group. It was a private citizen messaging the Cabinet. I’m not aware of what the group even discussed, because I was not part of it. I learned of it the same time you did.

No, Roavin did not lie. There were multiple people suspicious of Islands, mostly because he was more well-versed than they’d expect a newbie to be. (And after a cursory IP investigation, I didn’t find their suspicions correct.) You’ve assumed that the I was one of the other people who shared Roavin’s suspicions, and you’ve assumed just because he made his concerns known to the CRS that the CRS took them seriously. You assumed that because you’re not actually interested in muckraking journalism, just spouting your anti-TSP propaganda.

[Vulturret]

It's a rather well-known and established fact that I disagreed with the merits and reasonability of the recent proscription issues by the government of Prime Minister Serres. As a matter of fact, I disagreed with the burden the proscription placed on Citizens of the Ragerian Imperium so much that I decided to file a case in the High Court regarding the proscription and its legality. I submitted a reasonable appeal of the proscription of TRI on 3 November, and received a denial from the Chief Justice, Kris Kringle. The Chief Justice responded extremely quickly, which I am very grateful for. Despite the numerous systemic issues and governmental issues of the South Pacific, I must say that the region should attempt to follow the behavior and professionalism of the Chief Justice. He has been a rare bright spot for TSP, and I do wish he would lend his voice more and help out to lead the region to better days. It really is a shame that a feeder with such immense potential is going to waste at the hands of pro-defender politicians who place their own interests ahead of the betterment of the region and engaged in unprovoked crusades on other regions rather than focusing on the internal interests and situations of the region they were elected to serve. Part of the region I appealed the proscription is that I ultimately do have hope that the South Pacific can see better days- it is difficult, but achievable. I'm sure there are numerous individuals that theoretically could help to improve the situation over there, however they are being barred from doing this by a blanket regional proscription that was issued in an unjust and illegal manner. These extra-judicial proscriptions are detrimental only to the South Pacific, and the constituents of Prime Minister Serres and his government should be extremely concerned with their behavior.

Firstly, I am confused as to why the Chief Justice didn't issue his reasoning for refusing the appeal of TRI's proscription in his refusal; that part made no sense to me. However, he gave me the option to ask for reasoning, which I did, and he provided me with the full ruling in a post made earlier today.

Second, I respect the ruling of the Court, but I disagree with the Chief Justice on a purely legal basis, at least insofar as the interpretation of the Proscription Act is concerned. In his determination of justiciability, Chief Justice Kringalia cites Article 4 (1) of the Proscription Act, which reads as follows: "(1) Individuals subject to a proscription may challenge the issuing authority's determination of hostility in the High Court." The Chief Justice employs a fancified reading of (1) and an equally so determination of the definition of the word 'subject,' used in this case as an adjective, which I don't believe has any legal basis whatsoever. According to the relevant meaning in Merriam Webster's definition of the word 'subject,' "suffering a particularly liability or exposure," my appeal is indeed in total accordance with the provisions set out by the Proscription Act. With this in mind, Chief Justice Kringle had no legal basis for his denial of my appeal on behalf of TRI. This is because I am indeed "suffering a particular liability" (the definition of the word subject), due to the proscription of the Ragerian Imperium. This liability comes straight out of the Proscription Act: "(1) A regional proscription is a prohibition on an individuals or on all members of a region or organization from having a nation in any regions in the Coalition's jurisdiction." This is indeed an objective liability; I am being legally prevented from doing something based on a fancified reading of law that doesn't really have any basis in the literal definition of the word of the text. Therefore, I was in every right to appeal the "issuing authority's determination of hostility" in the High Court. I will turn to my advisers and explore legal options for appealing the Chief Justice's decision.

Third, I wish to request that the Prime Minister or their duly authorized representative offer some sort of explanation that the proscription they issued actually manages to meet the standards established by the Proscription Act, and more importantly, why the Prime Minister and their Government believe that the proscription does so. For the purposes of contending the proscription on the Gameplay forum, as I did to no avail in the High Court of the South Pacific, I will remind all readers and the Prime Minister the requirements established by internal TSP law for a reasonable proscription: "(2) A proscription must be issued publicly, and be accompanied with a report detailing the hostile acts. All extant proscriptions must be publicly visible at all times."

Most importantly, it should be noted that Prime Minister's proscription of the Ragerian Imperium could hardly be construed as constituting a "report detailing" anything. Furthermore, it is important to note that the Prime Minister does not possess the authority to determine what is "hostile," rather these definitions are established by Article 1 of the Proscription Act, which I will re-visit momentarily. For reference, the below is the proscription issued by the Prime Minister, which is supposed to be a "detail"ed report of the "hostile" actions TRI has supposedly taken against the South Pacific. I will address each of its two sentences (this is one incredibly detailed report) below.

[align=justify]Finally, the region The Ragerian Imperium shall be considered regionally proscribed. This region is a merger of several regions including the aforementioned H Y D R A and had included McMannia in a high-level leadership position up until very recently; this continuity may, on its own, qualify for a determination of hostility equal to that of H Y D R A.

No; you have no grounds for this absurd and baseless statement that "this continuity may […] qualify for a determination of hostility equal to that of H Y D R A." Let me remind you that you can only determine hostility based on the very deliberate clauses of the Proscription Act. Allow me to review those clauses with you:

• (1) Any individual, region or organization that was or is actively involved or complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific or its allies and partners, shall be considered hostile.

  
  When did TRI do any of the above? What does McMannia being a member of TRI have anything to do with the above? Remember, McMannia doing these things (or indeed anyone else doing them) as a member of H Y D R A is not applicable as you are not proscribing McMannia (although you probably should instead of making the baseless statements, I'm sure he'd appreciate it.)

• (2) Any individual, region or organization that has coordinated to exploit, manipulate, or unduly influence elections or votes in The South Pacific, or its allies and partners, on behalf of a foreign region or organization shall be considered hostile.

  
  When did TRI do any of the above? What does McMannia being a member of TRI have anything to do with the above? Remember, McMannia doing these things (or indeed anyone else doing them) as a member of H Y D R A is not applicable as you are not proscribing McMannia.

• (3) Any individual, region or organization that has engaged in or has attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific or its allies and partners shall be considered hostile.

  
  When did TRI do any of the above? What does McMannia being a member of TRI have anything to do with the above? Remember, McMannia doing these things (or indeed anyone else doing them) as a member of H Y D R A is not applicable as you are not proscribing McMannia.

• (4) Any individual, region or organization that has or has attempted to sabotage military operations of The South Pacific, outside of normal raiding and defending dynamics, shall be considered hostile.
  

  
  When did TRI do any of the above? What does McMannia being a member of TRI have anything to do with the above? Remember, McMannia doing these things (or indeed anyone else doing them) as a member of H Y D R A is not applicable as you are not proscribing McMannia.

Furthermore, on July 26, 2018, Emperor Vulturret openly admitted on the NationStates Gameplay forum that they had considered, if not outright ordered, intelligence missions into the South Pacific, constituting hostility missions as per Section 3 (espionage).

I did? That's news to me. Oh wait, you actually referenced a post I actually made? Let's go read it and see if you are a bunch of straw men or if you have a real argument here. I'll put my money on the former, personally. For reference, the post in question can be found here, and has only been edited once (when the post was made to fix BBCode.)

I re-read the post, and nowhere did I suggest that I/they (TRI) "outright ordered intelligence missions into the South Pacifc." The one part that you probably falsified to mean that would be the following:

Admiral McMannia has done limitless incredible work for both HYDRA and TRI, and has come up with numerous awesome ideas for our intelligence and counter-intelligence missions pertaining to the South Pacific and other regions, but to suggest that he is the "mastermind of all hostilities" is laughable.

First, it is a humongous stretch to say that this constitutes "order"ing intelligence missions into anywhere. Second, must I remind you what a compound sentence is? The first clause and second clause of that sentence (and indeed the third clause, from a purely grammatical perspective) are both independent clauses (meaning they can stand on their own as sentences), and thus have to be interpreted as separate, though connected statements. The reason they are connected, of course, is because they both relate to the services of McMannia Whitehall. However, the first clause states "Admiral McMannia has done limitless incredible work for both HYDRA and TRI". This is an objective fact. McMannia was instrumental in the development of HYDRA as its Founder, and he also served throughout different incarnations in a plethora of different roles. I won't name them all here and now. Insofar as TRI is concerned, McMannia indeed did good work for military operations for the Armada in TRI (none of which were related to the South Pacific, because, as proven previously, TRI categorically has never participated in military operations against the South Pacifc) and he also had a tenure in the coveted position of Speaker of the Citizens' Assembly, a position responsible for spearheading the legislative efforts of our Citizenry. This unparalleled service in no way constitutes what the proscription says it does, which is that I "admitted […] that they had considered, if not outright ordered," any kind of military operation against the South Pacific. If you think it does constitute that, you're being intentionally obtuse and misreading a statement in order to further your own goals, which is something that the South Pacific has a propensity towards doing.

You may say that the second clause admits "ordering" some kind of "intelligence mission," however this is a construct with no basis in reality and is objectively false. The second clause reads " and has come up with numerous awesome ideas for our intelligence and counter-intelligence missions pertaining to the South Pacific and other regions". The second clause is in no way incorrect, but additionally, it in no way constitutes "ordering any intelligence mission" as you suggest. TRI categorically has never ordered nor participated in any operation against the South Pacific, and all allegations that we have are demonstrably false. "Our intelligence and counter-intelligence mission pertaining to the South Pacifc" obviously referred to the operation that you cited (and was indeed undertaken, I have now confirmed this with McMannia, as a reasonable counter-measure to your support of an illegal government in Lazarus), which was undertaken by HYDRA. TRI had no involvement whatsoever in this operation (and nor did I for that matter.)

With that in mind, the proscription is patently false and seeks to deliberately misrepresent the actual intentions of TRI in order to keep our Citizenry out of your region (I won't speculate as to whether or not they wish to be there in the first place), because you are under the irrational pretense that we would ever attempt action against the South Pacific. Prove me wrong.

I'd like the actual government to respond to this. The public may not have a right to know (as you will inevitably argue), but they deserve to know, and so do the Citizens of TRI that are being unfairly burdened by your falsified allegations.

[Drop Your Pants]

Could have done without the R/D bashing in the first paragraph, drags the whole post down to usual GP standards.

[Vulturret]

Could have done without the R/D bashing in the first paragraph, drags the whole post down to usual GP standards.

I disagree that "R/D" bashing was any intent or motiation behind the language used. On the contary, the word choice correctly illustrates the unfortunate state of the current level of political and governmental advancement on display in the South Pacific.

[Kringalia]

Firstly, I am confused as to why the Chief Justice didn't issue his reasoning for refusing the appeal of TRI's proscription in his refusal; that part made no sense to me. However, he gave me the option to ask for reasoning, which I did, and he provided me with the full ruling in a post made earlier today.

In complete honesty, I do that because I'd rather not spend time writing a full opinion unless the submitter actually wants one. If one is asked, however, as was the case with your appeal, I am always happy to comply and explain the Court's reasoning.

Second, I respect the ruling of the Court, but I disagree with the Chief Justice on a purely legal basis, at least insofar as the interpretation of the Proscription Act is concerned. In his determination of justiciability, Chief Justice Kringalia cites Article 4 (1) of the Proscription Act, which reads as follows: "(1) Individuals subject to a proscription may challenge the issuing authority's determination of hostility in the High Court." The Chief Justice employs a fancified reading of (1) and an equally so determination of the definition of the word 'subject,' used in this case as an adjective, which I don't believe has any legal basis whatsoever. According to the relevant meaning in Merriam Webster's definition of the word 'subject,' "suffering a particularly liability or exposure," my appeal is indeed in total accordance with the provisions set out by the Proscription Act. With this in mind, Chief Justice Kringle had no legal basis for his denial of my appeal on behalf of TRI. This is because I am indeed "suffering a particular liability" (the definition of the word subject), due to the proscription of the Ragerian Imperium. This liability comes straight out of the Proscription Act: "(1) A regional proscription is a prohibition on an individuals or on all members of a region or organization from having a nation in any regions in the Coalition's jurisdiction." This is indeed an objective liability; I am being legally prevented from doing something based on a fancified reading of law that doesn't really have any basis in the literal definition of the word of the text. Therefore, I was in every right to appeal the "issuing authority's determination of hostility" in the High Court. I will turn to my advisers and explore legal options for appealing the Chief Justice's decision.

That would be because the Court's initial reading of the Proscription Act was different than yours, as was explained here:

In truth, the Court cannot say with full certainty that the Proscription Act allows for the appeal of regional proscriptions in the same way as individual proscriptions may be appealed. That does not mean that a legal challenge on this initial interpretation could not be considered, or that the Assembly could not pass clarifying language. This simply means that, under an initial reading of the Proscription Act, held to a different standard than that of a ruling to a fully argued and considered legal question, regional proscriptions lack a clear and unambiguous path towards being challenged.

As the above paragraph says, that reading could change if (a) the Assembly passed clarifying language, to either clearly allow or clearly deny the right to appeal regional proscriptions, or (b) if a legal question was submitted to ask the Court to formally interpret the Proscription Act. Neither guarantees you a desired outcome, nor am I saying that you should or shouldn't follow either option, but the options do exist.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Firstly, I am confused as to why the Chief Justice didn't issue his reasoning for refusing the appeal of TRI's proscription in his refusal; that part made no sense to me. However, he gave me the option to ask for reasoning, which I did, and he provided me with the full ruling in a post made earlier today.

In complete honesty, I do that because I'd rather not spend time writing a full opinion unless the submitter actually wants one. If one is asked, however, as was the case with your appeal, I am always happy to comply and explain the Court's reasoning.

This is an odd approach.

[Lord Dominator]

In complete honesty, I do that because I'd rather not spend time writing a full opinion unless the submitter actually wants one. If one is asked, however, as was the case with your appeal, I am always happy to comply and explain the Court's reasoning.

This is an odd approach.

Why? I don't find it unreasonable that someone not fully explain themselves unless someone actually wants to know why.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

This is an odd approach.

Why? I don't find it unreasonable that someone not fully explain themselves unless someone actually wants to know why.

Because it comes off either as being too lazy to do what you'd really expect of a justice or it's basically saying that he knows the outcome before the reason why. Both should worry people concerned with the pursuit of real justice in TSP.

[Lord Dominator]

Why? I don't find it unreasonable that someone not fully explain themselves unless someone actually wants to know why.

Because it comes off either as being too lazy to do what you'd really expect of a justice or it's basically saying that he knows the outcome before the reason why. Both should worry people concerned with the pursuit of real justice in TSP.

Laziness perhaps I can see, but as far as I can tell Kringle is saying merely that he doesn't nescacarily write down the Court's opinion until someone wants it, not that it doesn't exist and the Court is writing stuff to justify it later.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Because it comes off either as being too lazy to do what you'd really expect of a justice or it's basically saying that he knows the outcome before the reason why. Both should worry people concerned with the pursuit of real justice in TSP.

Laziness perhaps I can see, but as far as I can tell Kringle is saying merely that he doesn't nescacarily write down the Court's opinion until someone wants it, not that it doesn't exist and the Court is writing stuff to justify it later.

I can see that view too, but the other way is absolutely how it'll be taken by many.

[Kringalia]

Because it comes off either as being too lazy to do what you'd really expect of a justice

I'm most definitely being lazy. I'm allowing myself that because I don't see it as a core part of my duty as a Justice.

or it's basically saying that he knows the outcome before the reason why.

I'm not sure how I could possibly decide that a case is not justiciable, without having a reason for it. That would make no sense.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

or it's basically saying that he knows the outcome before the reason why.

I'm not sure how I could possibly decide that a case is not justiciable, without having a reason for it. That would make no sense.

I'm suggesting that the result is perhaps decided before you might have had a chance to fully consider it, but that's all I say and leave you to it.