Transcript - Meeting on the 13th Dec, 1 PM SLT

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

Moderator: SC Moderators

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="Beathan":20977ft5]I am endeavoring to show restraint in this regard, and have done so in my satirical push poll[/quote:20977ft5]

I should hate to see you unrestrained.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Diderot --

There are several things that I really dislike about proposal 3. In fact, there is almost nothing I like about it. First, it unfairly criticizes the PJSB for having only one member (implicitly criticizing that member) without also criticizing the judiciary itself on this basis (although the judiciary is more culpable, given the obstacles our judge has erected to appointment or qualification of other potential judges).

Second, it is clear exactly who Ash has in mind as the two other judges to be appointed. Additionally, the appointment of only two judges will not give us a functioning judiciary. We need at least four judges to handle appeals. Further, the request that we just appoint judges, rather than going through the confirmation process [i:17gvav0q]required by the Act[/i:17gvav0q], which Ash himself has said is the only process that gets to critical issues of character and temperament, is a very scary and poor proposal. It shows that Ash himself sees that his Act, at least insofar as it pertains to appointment of judges, is unworkable -- and he wants to bypass the parts of it that are beyond his personal control. I don't see how this can be acceptable to anyone outside the newly emerging elite class of lawyers that is forming around the nucleus of the Judiciary Act.

Third, the proposal restores the Ashcroft Code. This should be a separate matter from keeping the Judiciary Act. Currently, we have a very good Code. Even if we decide to keep the Act, it is not self-evident that we should get rid of the current Code and restore the Ashcroft Code. There was a lot more wrong with the Ashcroft Code than its format (not being in Wiki) and it lack of explanatory literature (we will add more and more words to something that is already far too wordy).

Fourth, I am deeply suspicious of which postings will inform any modification to the Ashcroft Code. I rather suspect, as I point out in my satire, that the posts that are used will be carefully vetted to ensure that no important and necessary change happens -- and we are left with the imperfect Ashcoft Code with no, or merely marginal, improvements.

I don't think proposal 3 makes the Judiciary Act workable. Even if the Act is workable in principle, it is not workable in fact -- given the Ashcroft Code -- and the proposal 3 does not even begin to address this issue. Rather, it throws out the only positive step -- the only fix -- we have yet had in the implementation of the Judiciary Act (the current Code).

Beathan

P.S. I added an additional comment on the appointment of judges after Ash responded. I did so primarily because this post was a response to Diderot, who has not yet responded. I don't see myself responding to Ash in the near future -- as others (FR, Publius, Dianne) are doing it better than I.
Last edited by Beathan on Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
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="Beathan":133ijc6g]There are several things that I really dislike about proposal 3. In fact, there is almost nothing I like about it.[/quote:133ijc6g]

Of course you don't like it. You don't like anything that acknowledges that the present structure ought be retained to any extent. It is quite evident that nothing will ever change that opinion, whether it ought to or not. That does not mean that you are right, however.

[quote:133ijc6g]First, it unfairly criticizes the PJSB for having only one member[/quote:133ijc6g]

Excuse me, but where, exactly, does it do this? The PJSP currently has no members, although there are a good few people willing to stand for it.

[quote:133ijc6g](implicitly criticizing that member) without also criticizing the judiciary itself on this basis (although the judiciary is more culpable, given the obstacles our judge has erected to appointment or qualification of other potential judges).[/quote:133ijc6g]

Do you really understand the proposal so poorly that you think this? The special commissioners proposal precisely ensures that there are no fewer than three members of the Board of the Judiciary Commission - which would address this exact issue.

[quote:133ijc6g]Second, it is clear exactly who Ash has in mind as the two other judges to be appointed.[/quote:133ijc6g]

And you don't like them because they disagree with you? Incidentally, who do you think that they are?

[quote:133ijc6g] Additionally, the appointment of only two judges will not give us a functioning judiciary. We need at least four judges to handle appeals.[/quote:133ijc6g]

The appointment of two judges is enough to fulfil the current quota set by the Chair of the Judiciary Commission. More potential applicants are available if the chair decides to increase that quota.

[quote:133ijc6g]Third, the proposal restores the Ashcroft Code. This should be a separate matter from keeping the Judiciary Act. Currently, we have a very good Code. Even if we decide to keep the Act, it is not self-evident that we should get rid of the current Code and restore the Ashcroft Code. There was a lot more wrong with the Ashcroft Code than its format (not being in Wiki) and it lack of explanatory literature (we will add more and more words to something that is already far too wordy). [/quote:133ijc6g]

I know that you dislike the proper code. That has been discussed elsewhere. I notice that you have singularly failed to address the substantive points that I made against your arguments on that thread.

[quote:133ijc6g]Fourth, I am deeply suspicious of which postings will inform any modification to the Ashcroft Code. I rather suspect, as I point out in my satire, that the posts that are used will be carefully vetted to ensure that no important and necessary change happens -- and we are left with the imperfect Ashcoft Code with no, or merely marginal, improvements.[/quote:133ijc6g]

What you think of as "important and necessary change" is not necessarily what [i:133ijc6g]is[/i:133ijc6g] important and/or necessry change.

[quote:133ijc6g]I don't think proposal 3 makes the Judiciary Act workable. [/quote:133ijc6g]

No, you wouldn't. You said at the meeting that it was so obvious that it would not work that it ought not even be tried. Somebody else pointed out that that was an absurd thing to say because reasonable people disagreed about whether it was obvious, and the only way of breaking that disagreement is with more data: by testing the system. Your only response to that ever seems to have been "but it [i:133ijc6g]is[/i:133ijc6g] obvious: listen to me and ignore everyone else because I'm infallible".
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1is908cy]I know that you dislike the proper code. That has been discussed elsewhere. I notice that you have singularly failed to address the substantive points that I made against your arguments on that thread.[/quote:1is908cy]

"Proper" code? If you can't see that your use of language here, in your "ballot", and elsewhere reveals a very partial bias, perhaps you should not sit as a judge.

[quote:1is908cy]No, you wouldn't. You said at the meeting that it was so obvious that it would not work that it ought not even be tried. Somebody else pointed out that that was an absurd thing to say because reasonable people disagreed about whether it was obvious, and the only way of breaking that disagreement is with more data: by testing the system. Your only response to that ever seems to have been "but it [i:1is908cy]is[/i:1is908cy] obvious: listen to me and ignore everyone else because I'm infallible".[/quote:1is908cy]

So, let's see if I understand the situation...15 people cast votes, 5 for, 5 against, 5 somewhere in the middle. Only the 5 for are to be heeded? Are you so infallible?

Test your system, but don't FORCE it on those of us who see its flaws. Test is as an opt-in system. If it works, huzzah! If not, no lasting harm done. However, "testing" this as a coercive, no-opt-out system can do lasting damage even during a short trial period.

Perhaps a mother will never think her child ugly, but when others fail to comment on its beauty she should take a hint.
Locked

Return to “Special Comission on the Judiciary Forum”