Agenda item 1: Testing the Judiciary Act

To plan and discuss the meetings to take place under the auspices of the Comission

Moderator: SC Moderators

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Nationality and 2L

Post by michelmanen »

Beathan wrote:

[quote:2g3ldoby]I think basing our justice system on any RL nation's system threatens to deprive CDS citizens of their nationality.[/quote:2g3ldoby]


Weak, Beathan, weak...

That is the biggest non-sequitur I have ever heard. It requires no further comment.
Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Re: Nationality and 2L

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

[quote="michelmanen":2ob0xrni]Beathan wrote:

[quote:2ob0xrni]I think basing our justice system on any RL nation's system threatens to deprive CDS citizens of their nationality.[/quote:2ob0xrni]


Weak, Beathan, weak...

That is the biggest non-sequitur I have ever heard. It requires no further comment.[/quote:2ob0xrni]
Maybe it is better to say that basing our justice system on any RL nation's system threatens to deprive CDS systems of their [i:2ob0xrni]multinationality[/i:2ob0xrni].
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Justice --

Your point is probably the right one -- and your phrase the right phrase. However, what I had in mind was to point out that imposing an English, or even an Anglo-American, judicial model on an international organization, such as the CDS, privileges some participants in the CDS (the Anglo-Americans) over the others (everyone else). Further, imposition of a completely detailed and exhaustice legal system from a RL society, without regard to either the CDS community itself or the national origin of CDS members from country's other than the one that formed the inspiration for the system, looks and feels like a colonial imposition, rather than a democratically created institution.

Colonialism and imperialism, in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries sense, is a denial of national identity. Throughout the European foreign possessions, nations were denied, destroyed, force-fit into unnatural combinations. The problems of this project have continue today and appear likely to continue for the foreseeable future. None of the people who suffered from this process lost their passports -- but the loss was real nonetheless. I see the loss from a one-size-fits all system, inspired by a RL system, to be analogous to imperialism in important respects. I have seen several others also express this concern.

Beathan
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Colonisation??

Post by michelmanen »

Beathan,

This has strictly nothing to do with 2L! no RL nation is trying to colonise ot take over 2L! We are all using our TL experience to build something in 2L. If you're unhappy that Anglo-Saxons are in the majority, recruit 1000 Swahilis and set up a Swahili-inspired judiciary - as long as it respects the basic principles of democratic legitimacy, judicial independence and rule of law.

Michel
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

The whole human rights debate is quite absurd here. The point is that the CDS is a nation itself, as people realise when they join it. It has its own cultures, traditions, norms and history. People from different nations may bring useful experience of how things work there with them, that can be used in making our own nation work well, but what people sign up to when they come into the CDS is a totally novel, single, individual nation, with its own single, individual culture. If we merely defer to people's national cultures, traditions, norms and history, then we have already failed in our attempt to create a virtual nation.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Re: Our flawed judiciary

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Publius Crabgrass":2ypeownc][b:2ypeownc]Our flawed judiciary[/b:2ypeownc]

I am posting this here, on agenda item 1, but it really applies to most if not all of the agenda items.

Ashcroft and others argue that this Commission is premature, that the legal system should be given a chance to prove itself. I suggest that the system has already had two and maybe even three key tests, and has failed them. First, and I’ll discuss this in more detail a little later, the system has allowed one person to make nearly all of the initial decisions ranging from the important, such judicial qualifications, down to the trivial, such as design of judicial robes. This devolution of authority to one person has undermined public confidence in the system. Even if those who lack confidence in the system can be fairly termed as only a “vocal minority” (and this Commission is an attempt to gauge the size of that minority, or perhaps majority), the number of voices raised has convinced me that the judiciary is held in disrepute by too many of our fellow citizens.[/quote:2ypeownc]

You are using a flawed concept of a "test" to conflate two quite distinct issues that must be kept separate. The two separate issues are (1) what [i:2ypeownc]kind[/i:2ypeownc] of judiciary we ought to have, as a matter of principle; and (2) whether, as a matter of practice, the judiciary that we have is workable. A judicial system that is of the right kind in principle may be workable or unworkable, and a judiciary that is wrong in principle may be workable or unworkable (the Chinese judiciary, for example, is deeply flawed in principle, but it is not [i:2ypeownc]impractical[/i:2ypeownc]). The flaw in your concept of a test is that you are using examples of inherent features of the design of the judiciary to claim that it is not the [i:2ypeownc]kind[/i:2ypeownc] of judiciary that we ought to have, rather than pointing to examples of the judiciary failing to work in practice.

The points that you make above and below about judges without security of tenure, who makes the decisions about procedure, and so forth, are not relevant to the practical workability of the judiciary, but whether it is designed according to principles with which you agree. When we are considering here "testing" the judiciary, we do not mean testing it to see whether its foundational principles are principles with which we agree: no testing is required for that; we are considering the practical workability of the system. Claiming that the judiciary has failed some sort of test because it does not follow the abstract principles that you think that all judicial systems should follow misses the point.

In reality, there will never be a consensus on what principles should underlie our judicial system, as this debate has proved. What is needed is a principled compromise following public debate, taken by elected representatives and then, once the compromise on the principle has been made, for everyone to unite behind it and move forward to making the system work. Any other way of working would result in decisions never being taken, and unending political termoil. [i:2ypeownc]We have already had that debate and comrpmise[/i:2ypeownc]; unfortunately for you, it occurred before you ever joined, but that does not mean that you have a special right to demand that the compromise be re-opened as a result of your late arrival. There are many things that I should have liked to have been different about the way in which the judiciary is structured; indeed, there are many things that I should like to be different about how the other institutions of state should be structured, too, but, since I joined after they were designed, and since they seem largely to be working, I do not go around wasting mine and everybody else's time campaigning for a change.

What is important to understand is that the principles of judicial independence and questions of judicial selection were the most intensively debated part of the passage of the Judiciary Act. Thousands upon thousands of words in the forums were expended on debating the theoretical issues surrounding judicial appointments and security of tenure. The product of that Herculean public debate was the great compromise that resulted in the present position: judges are qualified by existing judges, and appointed by a popular but non-partisan body called the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel. Unless something proves [i:2ypeownc]impractical[/i:2ypeownc] about that arrangement, it is wrong in principle to reverse a decision reached in principle by a legitimate institution merely because some new people have arrived who have a different idea of what the principles should be.

Whether the system is [i:2ypeownc]workable[/i:2ypeownc] is another question entirely. It is reasonable to change aspects of a system, even a new system, where practical problems in the operation have emerged. However, for the most part, the practical operation of a judiciary involves hearing cases. Its test will be how it manages to hear those cases. If it is found wanting, it can then be changed, preferably, from within, but, if not, from outside. The point that Pat and others are making is that, since we have already made the principled decision, it is utterly improper (and quite undemocraitc) to reverse that: if there are practical problems, that is another matter, but whether or not there are such problems cannot be assessed without evidence: that evidence is gathered by the system in operation.

[quote:2ypeownc]Second, the system has failed the important test of establishing a simple and usable set of Code of Procedure, though the RA is trying to correct this imbalance by passing a much more user-friendly set of Rules. As some have pointed out, though, the RA’s rules may have swung the pendulum too far toward simplicity, leaving out such matters as how to appeal final judgements to the SC. But the Code issued by the Judiciary was amazingly detailed, stupefyingly long, and, as has been discussed on the forum ad nauseam, makes a number of policy decisions better left to the political process.[/quote:2ypeownc]

I have explained many times elsewhere why it is absolutely vital to have a detailed code: and why a code in SecondLife needs to be far [i:2ypeownc]more[/i:2ypeownc] detailed than in any first life jurisdiction. I have also written that it is not user unfriendly to have a detailed code, properly broken down into chapters in a Wiki like format, combined with easy-to-use guides and precedents for people to adapt. I know that Oni is willing to work on such precedents. The combination of a detailed code with a guide and precedents makes things vastly easier for litigants in person than any vague code ever could. With detailed procedures and guides, one can say, "If you want the basics, look [i:2ypeownc]here[/i:2ypeownc]; if you want the details, look [i:2ypeownc]here[/i:2ypeownc]"; with a vague code, one is forced to say, "If you want the basics, look [i:2ypeownc]here[/i:2ypeownc]; if you want the details... tough".

As to policy decisions, the whole point was that the legislature would be able to over-ride procedural rules made by the judiciary, but that the formulation of the rules in the first instance should be left to those who (1) understand the law and have experience of it; and (2) have the time to devote to a specifically legal enterprise. If we spent four months debating the structure of the outline Judiciary Act, we would be here until domesday if the legislature had to write the code. Forcing it to agree on something specific before it can over-ride the procedures issued by the judiciary makes absolutely sure that there is never a gap left in the procedures in consequence of legislative disagreement. That was the principled basis upon which that part of the Judiciary Act was passed, and rightly so. If you do not like the policy decisions made in the code, the correct course of action is to start a public debate on the issue with a view to legislative over-ride. However, the legislature should not lightly overturn a decision that has been taken very carefully by the judiciary: sufficient principled debate and careful consideration should take place first. This was woefully lacking when the current rules were passed.

[quote:2ypeownc]In constructing those 125 plus pages of procedures, when a choice was to be made in nearly every instance Ashcroft chose the UK model as the “better” one. Examples range from the English “loser pays” rule on attorney fees, cross-examination rules, allocation of burden of proof, the names for various court forms/“precedents” (e.g. Notice in the Ordinary), the “High Court”, judicial robes, bowing, the witness box, design of the courtroom, etc. It seems that only wigs have been omitted.[/quote:2ypeownc]

This serioulsy represents the novel nature of much of the code, and also the consideration that I put into each of the issues: I most certainly did not opt for the English option by default. The rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party's costs prevents grave injustice that can arise where another person's wrong causes somebody to be out of pocket because, although the victim of the wrong has won the case, he or she has still had to pay legal fees. The cross-examination rule prevents parties from deviously making speculative points when a witness could decicively answer the issue. The standard of proof, you will note, is not English at all, but quite novel, albiet more similar to the [i:2ypeownc]American[/i:2ypeownc] standard of "clear and convincing" than anything else. "Notice in the Ordinary" is a novel phrase: the English equivalent is a "claim form" (or, before 1999, a "writ"). I have not the slightest idea why you think that our originating process in England uses the term "Notice in the Ordinary". The name "High Court" was chosen because, although I had initially intended to use the name "Superme Court" as being more precisely descriptive, I realised that the initials ("S. C.") clashed with those of the Scientific Council, and could therefore cause confusion.

[quote:2ypeownc]One can hardly fault Ash for choosing the model with which he is most familiar. But the outcome would be greatly improved if these decisions were made by more than just one person.[/quote:2ypeownc]

Not necessarily: the cost in more than one person making the decision must be factored into the equation. When I joined, I was the only practising lawyer in the CDS. The assumption was made, quite reasonably, that the small details of the adminstration of the judiciary were best left to the single legal system expert instead of bogging down the legislature in minute discussion for months, while, if anything sufficiently important was raised as a matter of public concern, the legislature could intervene. Given that that is a model that works well in many real-life nations, the criticism above is hardly a reasonable one in the circumstances.

[quote:2ypeownc]Why must Anglo-American judiciaries be our model? What about other systems, or experimenting with our own unique SL systems? I seem to remember reading that China had (and maybe still has) a court consisting of three judges - the presiding judge who is legally trained, and two citizens. I am sure our multinational citizenry can provide other options, and WORKING TOGETHER, we can build a better mousetrap. Why walk when you can fly? Why have witnesses stand in a box when they can fly? Let us be more creative.[/quote:2ypeownc]

What we need is a [i:2ypeownc]working[/i:2ypeownc] judiciary, and now, not in 2009. There are no doubt [i:2ypeownc]thousands[/i:2ypeownc] of possible judicial permutations with which, on one level, it would be interesting to experiment, but that does not address our needs right now: we found somebody willing to design a judicial system (me), voted for that design (thrice), and now should stick to that design unless it throws up practical problems in practice. That has not been tested yet, and should be.

[quote:2ypeownc]The system has also failed the test as to selection of judges, through a combination of design defect and improper implementation. The blame for these design defects can be placed with the architect (Ash) as well as those who approved the plans (the RA). First, it is too much power for one person to be the gatekeeper for the judiciary, and gives too much temptation to that one person to only allow those with whom agrees to pass through the gates. Moreover, those gates were constructed in the form of a maze: an unduly burdensome exam requiring several thousand words in reply, and no effort to validate the exam. The first response to the qualifying hurdle was that no one would jump, and after an extension it seems a couple of hurdlers have attempted it but may have been expressly imported for that purpose. The design flaw here is that judges (or especially only one judge) should not be charged with the task of qualifying those who would join the bench.[/quote:2ypeownc]

As written before, what you call a "design defect" was not an accidental oversight or blunder, but a deliberate and carefully considered decision, taken on principle, following an intensively-debated compromise. As explained above, it is wrong now to reverse principled decisions. If there are problems with the detail of administration (such as the concern that some people have about any one person having such powers), then the solution is to change the details, not the principle: the Special Commissioners proposal that I made, for example, would ensure that the Board of the Judiciary C0mmission is never composed of fewer than three people.

[quote:2ypeownc]Events of recent weeks have also convinced me that lifetime tenure for judges is inappropriate. We may find that a judge does not possess the required judicial temperament, and it should be easier to remove such a judge other than through the sledgehammer of impeachment. Rotating judicial terms would also allow more of our citizens to participate in the process.[/quote:2ypeownc]

I have little doubt that you were firmly convinced of this before you ever heard of SecondLife. Again, however, this was an issue that was discussed, [i:2ypeownc]as a matter of principle[/i:2ypeownc] with a very great deal of intensity indeed in the process that lead up to the passing of the Judiciary Act. See the old thread, "Expediting the development of our judicial system" for that principled debate.

Incidentally, is "events in recent weeks..." intended to be a personal comment about me? If so, it is wholly inappropriate and in breach of forum moderation guidelines.

[quote:2ypeownc]1. KISS - keep it simple, stupid. This means that the constitutional provisions should be short, establishing the judiciary. Make the rest simple legislation, so it is easier to change if we find that this experiment needs modification.[/quote:2ypeownc]

Being easy to change is not necessarily a good thing, as we have found out: it allows unending political termoil and damaging political instability. A legislature should never be able to say, "Decide this case against the government, and we'll abolish you", even subtly. A referendum should be needed before the fundamental tents of the judicial system can be altered.

[quote:2ypeownc]2. Change the judicial qualification process. The current method attempts to quantify the unquanitifiable, judicial skill. Or put another way, it tries to impose purportedly objective standards on the subjective question of whether someone is qualified to be a judge. The result has been that only those with RL legal training have any interest, and I think we would be better served if we had some citizen judges who have common sense but no legal training. SC appointment and RA confirmation would be a fine alternative to electing judges, but I support either method over the current scheme, especially if we eliminate lifetime appointment.[/quote:2ypeownc]

The debate about the vital importance of legal skill was again a debate that was had intensively in the months following the passage of the Judiciary Act, and was again decided on principle in favour of having skill. That you think that any given method is a "fine alterntaive" is not a reason for belieivng it to be so. Why is the Scientific Council better qualified to determine who should be a judge than the existing judiciary? Why is it better to have the partisan Representative Assembly appointing judges than the non-partisan Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel?

[quote:2ypeownc]3. Change the terms of judges. Six months is a lifetime in SecondLife. [/quote:2ypeownc]

This is a flawed argument. Either six months really is a lifetime, in which case people will resign in any event after six months, and the provision is redundant, or six months is not a lifetime, in which case people will want to serve for longer, and will potentially be influenced in how they decide individual cases by the views of the people (on your model, the [i:2ypeownc]political[/i:2ypeownc] Representative Assembly) who reappoint. We already made a principled stand against any system in which the RA could refuse to reappoint any judges who took decisions that were unfavourable to the government; the fact that you do not believe that this is important is not a reason to go back on it.

[quote:2ypeownc]4. Establish an intermediate appellate court between the trial judge and the SC. Ashcroft has said that I have the power to do this myself by increasing the number of courts to two, but I’d like to hear public input before I do so.[/quote:2ypeownc]

This does not, as you point out, require changing the Judiciary Act. The High Court will be the superior court, and the Central Court will be the inferior court. The High Court will sit with no fewer than three judges. One can appeal from an inferior court to a superior court.

[quote:2ypeownc]7. Keep the judicial system free and easy to use. Let us have a judicial system that anyone can navigate without the assistance of a lawyer, and at no cost to themselves. If we develop such a system, I think we will quickly find that it will be used by citizens and non-citizens alike, for SL has been a pretty lawless place. SL commerce will really only take off if there is a system for the rule of law, but it needs to be a legal system designed with the unique needs of SL residents kept in mind.[/quote:2ypeownc]

The unique needs of SL residents does not include a need for vagueness. As I have written before, detailed rules, supplemented by easy-to-use guides, provides a system that is easier to use than vagueness.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Publius Crabgrass
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:12 pm

Post by Publius Crabgrass »

As has been his practice during these debates, Ash not just confuses the forest for the trees, he focuses on each branch, leaf by leaf. Much more troubling is this aside buried in the middle:
[quote:3cm6ig7t]Incidentally, is "events in recent weeks..." intended to be a personal comment about me? If so, it is wholly inappropriate and in breach of forum moderation guidelines. [/quote:3cm6ig7t]
Most of my post is indeed about Ashcroft, but not personal but a critique of his performance in office. Ashcroft has made countless choices in the weeks since his appointment, and most of them misguided even if probably within his powers to do so. (Examples are discussed in more detail above). Thus, I conclude that the judiciary system is flawed, [i:3cm6ig7t]before it even hears a case[/i:3cm6ig7t], because most of the decisions made to date have been flawed.

But the real and most troubling problem here is the not so implicit threat, made by our one and only judge-for-life, to call the moderator police on any of his critics because of criticism of his performance in his judicial administrative role. [Same threat has been made against Beathan, for instance, and I believe an unsuccesful claim was brought against a member of the SC] Such threats are particularly inappropriate coming from the judiciary, as appeals of moderators decisions appear to be vested with the VERY SAME judge. This is more than just a judicial indiscretion, it represents a possible abuse of power of constitutional dimensions.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Publius Crabgrass":1wufdbbb]As has been his practice during these debates, Ash not just confuses the forest for the trees, he focuses on each branch, leaf by leaf.[/quote:1wufdbbb]

It is very disappointing to see this sort of sweeping criticism without any attempt at any reasoning behind it.

[quote:1wufdbbb] Much more troubling is this aside buried in the middle:
[quote:1wufdbbb]Incidentally, is "events in recent weeks..." intended to be a personal comment about me? If so, it is wholly inappropriate and in breach of forum moderation guidelines. [/quote:1wufdbbb]
Most of my post is indeed about Ashcroft, but not personal but a critique of his performance in office. Ashcroft has made countless choices in the weeks since his appointment, and most of them misguided even if probably within his powers to do so. (Examples are discussed in more detail above). Thus, I conclude that the judiciary system is flawed, [i:1wufdbbb]before it even hears a case[/i:1wufdbbb], because most of the decisions made to date have been flawed.

But the real and most troubling problem here is the not so implicit threat, made by our one and only judge-for-life, to call the moderator police on any of his critics because of criticism of his performance in his judicial administrative role. [Same threat has been made against Beathan, for instance, and I believe an unsuccesful claim was brought against a member of the SC] Such threats are particularly inappropriate coming from the judiciary, as appeals of moderators decisions appear to be vested with the VERY SAME judge. This is more than just a judicial indiscretion, it represents a possible abuse of power of constitutional dimensions.[/quote:1wufdbbb]

I draw your attention to the following passage from the forum moderation guidelines by which we are all bound:

[quote:1wufdbbb]3.5: When disagreeing with another poster make sure that your response takes issue with the arguments rather than with the person behind them. Abuse and personal attacks will not be tolerated.[/quote:1wufdbbb]

I am entitled, on that basis, to hold that posts personally criticising me, rather than criticising the abstract arguments that I make, to be in breach of the forum moderation guidelines. If any person "takes issue with [me]", that person is acting in breach of the guidelines, and inappropriately on this board. It is quite absurd to claim that me pointing out when others have acted improperly is a proper basis of criticism. And do you really think that I would not pass a case to another judge if it involved someone against whom I had personally made a complaint?
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Publius Crabgrass
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:12 pm

Post by Publius Crabgrass »

[quote:pwez6ued]I am entitled, on that basis, to hold that posts personally criticising me, rather than criticising the abstract arguments that I make, to be in breach of the forum moderation guidelines. If any person "takes issue with [me]", that person is acting in breach of the guidelines, and inappropriately on this board. It is quite absurd to claim that me pointing out when others have acted improperly is a proper basis of criticism. And do you really think that I would not pass a case to another judge if it involved someone against whom I had personally made a complaint?[/quote:pwez6ued]
Does this mean that criticism of your performance in office, or indeed, performance of any of our officeholder is barred? I certainly hope not, and perhaps the forum moderators could add their L$.02 here.

And of course, there aren't any other judges at the moment to whom you could pass off any appeals, and for the immediate foreseeable future any such future judges would only be those whom you have personally deemed "qualified".
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Publius Crabgrass":2jnza9bn]Does this mean that criticism of your performance in office, or indeed, performance of any of our officeholder is barred? I certainly hope not, and perhaps the forum moderators could add their L$.02 here.[/quote:2jnza9bn]

It means what it says that it means: personal criticism is prohibited on the forums. I did not make that rule, and I cannot properly be criticised for invoking it merely because you dislike it. No doubt, the reason that it is there is to prevent forum discussions from becoming what are colloquailly known as "flame wars", consisting of exhcanges of personal attacks that alienate everybody. It is an almost universal rule on all web discussion forums.

[quote:2jnza9bn]And of course, there aren't any other judges at the moment to whom you could pass off any appeals, and for the immediate foreseeable future any such future judges would only be those whom you have personally deemed "qualified".[/quote:2jnza9bn]

What does the latter have to do with anything? People whom I have [i:2jnza9bn]anonymously[/i:2jnza9bn] qualified on the basis of a written assessment of judicial ability are not, for that reason, going to be biased against people merely because I have made a legitimate complaint against them for breaching forum moderation guidelines, any more than a judge in a criminal case is "biased" against a defendant because he or she has a criminal record.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Publius Crabgrass
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:12 pm

Post by Publius Crabgrass »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1tddb4bj]What does the latter have to do with anything? People whom I have [i:1tddb4bj]anonymously[/i:1tddb4bj] qualified on the basis of a written assessment of judicial ability are not, for that reason, going to be biased against people merely because I have made a legitimate complaint against them for breaching forum moderation guidelines, any more than a judge in a criminal case is "biased" against a defendant because he or she has a criminal record.[/quote:1tddb4bj]
Anonymously? There were two applicants, and you have made it clear that one is an RL acquaintance. Perhaps you may not know which was Applicant A and which was Applicant B, but I really find it to stretch credibility (aye, another potentially personal criticism) to believe that you don't know the avatar names of at least one, if not both, of the current applicants. Heck, the SC hasn't posted them yet as far as I know, not having read all the many current forum postings, but I am willing to bet L$1000 that one is Oni and the other Michel - and I [i:1tddb4bj]have not seen the applications[/i:1tddb4bj].

Again, I invite the moderators to join in (though the Chief Judge-for-Life chose not to quote that portion of my post).
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Publius Crabgrass":37ccehto]Anonymously? There were two applicants, and you have made it clear that one is an RL acquaintance. Perhaps you may not know which was Applicant A and which was Applicant B, but I really find it to stretch credibility (aye, another potentially personal criticism) to believe that you don't know the avatar names of at least one, if not both, of the current applicants. Heck, the SC hasn't posted them yet as far as I know, not having read all the many current forum postings, but I am willing to bet L$1000 that one is Oni and the other Michel - and I [i:37ccehto]have not seen the applications[/i:37ccehto].[/quote:37ccehto]

Pity it wasn't US$1,000. But this is a somewhat absurd criticism: what else did you expect me to do when the constitution charges me with qualifying the applicants? It would be improper for me to fail to attempt to do so. Are you [i:37ccehto]seriously[/i:37ccehto] criticising me for doing nothing other than the constituiton requires?
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Publius Crabgrass
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:12 pm

Post by Publius Crabgrass »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3kpo834t][quote="Publius Crabgrass":3kpo834t]Anonymously? There were two applicants, and you have made it clear that one is an RL acquaintance. Perhaps you may not know which was Applicant A and which was Applicant B, but I really find it to stretch credibility (aye, another potentially personal criticism) to believe that you don't know the avatar names of at least one, if not both, of the current applicants. Heck, the SC hasn't posted them yet as far as I know, not having read all the many current forum postings, but I am willing to bet L$1000 that one is Oni and the other Michel - and I [i:3kpo834t]have not seen the applications[/i:3kpo834t].[/quote:3kpo834t]

Pity it wasn't US$1,000. But this is a somewhat absurd criticism: what else did you expect me to do when the constitution charges me with qualifying the applicants? It would be improper for me to fail to attempt to do so. Are you [i:3kpo834t]seriously[/i:3kpo834t] criticising me for doing nothing other than the constituiton requires?[/quote:3kpo834t]
Oh no, this at least is not really a personal criticism, just pointing out the constitutional conflict and absurdity to use your term, of having you recuse yourself in favor our judges whom who have personally qualified.

Do you really want to raise the ante to US $1000? $500 if I got one of the two right?
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Publius Crabgrass":gkecqf8k]Oh no, this at least is not really a personal criticism, just pointing out the constitutional conflict and absurdity to use your term, of having you recuse yourself in favor our judges whom who have personally qualified.[/quote:gkecqf8k]

Why is that absurd?

[quote:gkecqf8k]$500 if I got one of the two right?[/quote:gkecqf8k]

Already the doubt sets in?
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Locked

Return to “Special Comission on the Judiciary Forum”