What does support for "Amend" mean

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

Moderator: SC Moderators

Locked
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

What does support for "Amend" mean

Post by Beathan »

It has been argued that the Commission's support for amendment does not tell us much. After all, even minor or clerical "amendments" are still amendments -- so someone can support the "amend" option without wanting any substantial changes in the JA. Oni has identified himself as such a person.

However, this preference poll, as a ranked preference poll, provides us with rich data that gives us an answer to this question. A person who wants merely clerical or nonsubstantive amendments would nonetheless favor the Act in general. Such a person would have voted amend first, keep the act second. If a person feels that the idea of a formal judiciary is sound in principle , but that the Act is unworkable without changes, that person would vote for Amend First, Suspend second. Further, if that person thought that the general character of the Act was sound as is, even if substantial tinkering was needed, then "Keep the Act" would be their third choice. However, if the person thinks that substantial and deep changes, which even reach to the policy and basic structure of the Judiciary and the Act, are needed, then the person would prefer repealing the Act to keeping it as is.

A majority of the people who voted in favor of Amending the Act (3) fall into the last category. Only one proponent of Amendment falls into the first category -- and I have ranked this person as Pro-Act in my "up/down" formulation of the vote. This position lost.

Therefore, we can not only conclude that there is general consensus for amending the J.A. -- there is general consensus that this amendment must be substantial, perhaps radical. Again 9 of 15 commissioners had "keep the Act as is" as their last option -- preferring outright repeal to living under the Act in its current form. This is extremely meaningful.

Beathan
Last edited by Beathan on Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:05 pm, 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 »

This is arbitrary speculation. The only way to answer your question is to ask each of the commissioners what they meant. We already know that one commissioner meant only some very minor amendments. We also know that "keep" was ranked, at the very least, as high as "amend" (remember that I did not vote).

I suspect that if you asked all of the commissioners what amendments that they had in mind, they would give you as many different answers as there are commissioners.

Furthermore, it is simply false (and obviously false) that the poll showed that there was any kind of consensus at all: as even Justice's report to the RA this morning recognised, what it showed is that there most certainly is no consensus.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Locked

Return to “Special Comission on the Judiciary Forum”