Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:42 pm
by Flyingroc Chung
Indeed, much of what applies to the SC should apply to the judiciary as well, since the judiciary takes over much of the SC's previous role. A long time ago I proposed [url=http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread ... 0:1bd30dzv]this bill[/url:1bd30dzv]. I still think it's sensible; my position hasn't changed much.
Whoa... it seems that I proposed that half a lifetime ago. But it was really only back in May. So, I think I can support having judges serve lifetime terms, but only if we define "lifetime" as 14 months.
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:12 am
by Ashcroft Burnham
[quote="Flyingroc Chung":1kv0exjv]Indeed, much of what applies to the SC should apply to the judiciary as well, since the judiciary takes over much of the SC's previous role. A long time ago I proposed [url=http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread ... 0:1kv0exjv]this bill[/url:1kv0exjv]. I still think it's sensible; my position hasn't changed much.
Whoa... it seems that I proposed that half a lifetime ago. But it was really only back in May. So, I think I can support having judges serve lifetime terms, but only if we define "lifetime" as 14 months.[/quote:1kv0exjv]
Why would you want to lose good people after an arbitrary period of time with no guarantee of being able to replace them with equally good people?
I also notice that, under your proposal, Gwyneth's term would have ended last month. That would have been a very great loss indeed to our government.
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:59 am
by Aliasi Stonebender
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2kuxsfhk]
Why would you want to lose good people after an arbitrary period of time with no guarantee of being able to replace them with equally good people?
I also notice that, under your proposal, Gwyneth's term would have ended last month. That would have been a very great loss indeed to our government.[/quote:2kuxsfhk]
It would have been no loss at all, since FR's proposal did not specify a term limit. I expect Gwyn would have been easily re-confirmed.
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:13 am
by Ashcroft Burnham
[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":3aqx1yj3]It would have been no loss at all, since FR's proposal did not specify a term limit. I expect Gwyn would have been easily re-confirmed.[/quote:3aqx1yj3]
In which case we are back to the original problem that the people who decide whether to re-appoint a judge have the capacity to have a dangerous and illegitimate influence on that judge's decision in individual cases.
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:10 pm
by Aliasi Stonebender
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":18ioui43]
In which case we are back to the original problem that the people who decide whether to re-appoint a judge have the capacity to have a dangerous and illegitimate influence on that judge's decision in individual cases.[/quote:18ioui43]
As opposed to the dangerous and illegitimate influence they have when first appointing the judge...?
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:17 pm
by Beathan
Or as opposed to the dangerous and illegitimate influence the first judge has when appointing (or qualifying) his peers and successors?
Beathan
Optional formalities and procedures
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 12:54 pm
by Pelanor Eldrich
The wearing of the robes, the forms of address and the bowing should be made optional. However, their intended purpose is to impart a sense of respect, seriousness and decorum to the proceedings.
As long as proper respect and seriousness are demonstrated I see no need to enforce formalities. A well defined procedure is essential, and should be agreed upon in advance. If no agreement is forthcoming, a default code of procedure must be used. I'd prefer to see a multitude of procedures for 3rd party arbitration but only 1 or 2 for actual court cases. This would make running cases and analyzing precendents much easier for all concerned.