Proposed temporal residency requirements for judges

Forum to discuss issues pertaining to the organisation and operations of the judiciary.

Moderator: SC Moderators

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

Post by Beathan »

Michel wrote [quote:d5bw3ky2]The sustained personal attacks I have been subjected to because I dared apply for a judgeship position, while reprehensible, remain secondary to the critical point: the attempt to prevent by any by any means necessary the possibility that our democratically legitimated Judicature Act may prove its worth in practice.[/quote:d5bw3ky2]

I do not believe that I have attacked Michel for applying to be a judge. I could have. I am on record with my belief that the application is ethically flawed such that anyone who applies under it lacks the freedom from prejudice we should ethically require of our judges. I mentioned this in the notorious conversation I had with Michel -- but I have not mentioned it before on these forums.

What we have is a community having real, legitimate heartburn about the Judiciary Act. As the Act is implemented, it becomes clear that it is not what people thought it would be -- and not something they would have supported had they seen what was coming. (Granted, I was not here -- I am relying on conversations I have had with several citizens who were, who supported the act, and who have changed their minds.) This is the way democracies work. The greatest genius of a democracy is that it can change its mind.

Arrayed against this changing tide, we have three strident voices (each of whom is at least as loud and strident as I am in the other cause). First, we have Ash and Michel, who have vested interests in the system they want implemented and presume and aspire to a central role in that system. They are acting as aspiring office-holders have always acted -- interested in the system more for the status than the substantial gain to the community. It was not always so, and is not completely so even now, for Ash, but I see no track record to justify Michel's defense of the act as anything but a scramble for an office.

The third voice is Pat's -- and his is raised from legitimate concern that we not scrap four months hard labor (Ash, who took the laboring oar in this labor, shares this concern). I think that this concern will ultimately prove misguided (we are going in the wrong direction; the farther we go the harder it will be to get back), but I understand it as a natural reaction to the prospect of losing a lot of hard work. Out of respect for this community -- and for the efforts that were made to the Act before my arrival -- I have supported Justice's proposal, which charts a middle course between repeal and the status quo.

Pat argues [quote:d5bw3ky2]What is wrong with giving a new system some time to work? My main problem with those of you who wish to rip up the JA and start again is that you are trying to ensure that this system is stillborn. It is unfair and disrespectful to those of us who did participate in the development of the JA and who spent thousands of hours working on this. [/quote:d5bw3ky2]

This is a fundamentally mistaken basis for defense of a governmental system or policies. Once a program or policy is launch, it must stand on its own -- like a baby lizard. It is wrong to defend a policy or program that fails to justify itself by appealing to the work of the people who created it and claiming that rethinking it would disrespect them or their efforts. This kind of claim might make sense in literature or art, but not in public policy. The right of an institution or policy to survive is subject to a much harsher standard -- it must stand on its own, with all its warts, and make its own case for itself. If it fails to make that case, it must go.

I think Dimsum's post here -- and Diderot's in the Simplicity Party thread -- set forth the stark issues and problems with the Judiciary Act. Some of these problems cannot be solved without significant amendment to the Act. It may be that some of them cannot be solved short of repeal. However, these are problems -- even serious or fatal problems -- and they must be solved. If they are not, the RA is disrepecting the entire CDS community, and it should not be surprised when that community responds in the only way a democratic community can.

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:21 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.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Application for Judgeship

Post by michelmanen »

If Beathan would have taken the time to read the posts on the preceding page instead on carrying on with his personal attacks on my motives and integrity, he would have found the following paragraph posted only a few hours ago:

Michel Manen wrote:

[quote:33cv0e9q]2. I, for one, although I have a legal background in 2L, had no intention to be a judge. [...] I decided to apply simply because I was so appalled at the attempts of some to kill this democratically legitimated system before it even had the chance to prove itself, and were using any means available to ensure no one could be selected as a judge to justify the failure of the system. This is so totally undemocratic and unfair that it violates everything this community stands for. If CDS is to be democratic, and fair, and respect the rule of law, we cannot possibly let such attempts to gut the system before it is even tried out to succeed. That is the only reason I applied. [/quote:33cv0e9q]

Of course, Beathan is free to disregard anything I say as an attempt to justify a "scramble for office" - just as I remain free to label such tactics "using any and all means available in order to discredit and prevent from being selected those who dare apply for a judgeship and may actually make the system work".

User avatar
Fernando Book
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Post by Fernando Book »

I agree with Claude when he says that the judiciary controversy is centered around the judges selection and the procedure code, and the RA hasn't a direct responsibility on it.

But:

1) Although the outcome of the process wasn't predictable, it was designed (or, better, not designed) in a way that has made it prone to controversy, as both the judge selection and the procedure code were presented to the public without any input from the citizenry (via the RA, the PJSP or even the SC), so the judiciary would know what the citizens expect from it in terms of complexity, accessibility, user-friendliness (if that word exists) and so on.

2) Those two problems (selection and procedure code) are acting as a magnifying glass through which I (and several other posters) am looking the whole Judiciary and I am beggining to envision future problems if we don't act (and now we have several proposals on the table with different degrees of acting by Claude, Justice and Patroklus). If we don't act soon we'll regret it. "Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of our [second] life".

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

Implementation of the Judicature Act

Post by michelmanen »

Beathan wrote:

[quote:1phoqnm1]The right of an institution or policy to survive is subject to a much harsher standard -- it must stand on its own, with all its warts, and make its own case for itself. If it fails to make that case, it must go. [/quote:1phoqnm1]

I entirely agree with this statement. The entire argument turns around the fact that Beathan is using any and all means at his disposal in order to prevent the new legal system to "make its own case for itself" by attempting to prevent willing candidates to judgeship positions to apply. If no other judges are selected, the Judiciary Act cannot properly be implemented and Beathan can continue to claim it has failed and must be repealed. All I ask of Beathan is to be consistent with his own statement: let us "subject to a much harsher standard" our new legal system by letting it "make its own case for itself". Only then can it be properly evaluated - not BEFORE it has even had a chance to be put into practice.

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

Post by Beathan »

Michel --

I see your claim. I read the posts. I don't believe you. You came to the CDS seeking an office (with the PJSP). You have now switched which office you are seeking. However, there never was a time when you were not seeking an office.

Perhaps as a general rule, given that we have an established and stable population, we should not allow any person not qualified to vote to hold any office. The RA, in its wisdom, taking into accound the speed at which life in the CDS moves, has placed a 28 day waiting period on citizen voting rights. I see no harm in extending this period to include office-seeking as well. Such a change would be wise. It would give clear and specific guidance to citizens.

Further, I think that this would encourage office-seeking by qualified citizens. I have been scared off from seeking office by the charge that I don't know enough about CDS culture yet. A twenty-eight day rule would assuage this kind of concern. Others have ignored this concern -- but the fact is that it is a legitimate and proper concern.

Michel -- a lot of this discussion has been about checking facts, and the need that we do so. I hope that you have now come to the recognition that my echoing a residency requirement for office seeking was not an attempt by me to torpedoe the Judiciary Act. Rather, it was my statement, as a newcomer, that I accepted the concern of longtime residents that newcomers learn about the CDS before presuming to seek to run it.

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:14 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.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Michel wrote [quote:2kr7kc9b]I entirely agree with this statement. The entire argument turns around the fact that Beathan is using any and all means at his disposal in order to prevent the new legal system to "make its own case for itself" by attempting to prevent willing candidates to judgeship positions to apply. If no other judges are selected, the Judiciary Act cannot properly be implemented and Beathan can continue to claim it has failed and must be repealed. All I ask of Beathan is to be consistent with his own statement: let us "subject to a much harsher standard" our new legal system by letting it "make its own case for itself". Only then can it be properly evaluated - not BEFORE it has even had a chance to be put into practice.[/quote:2kr7kc9b]

If a public policy or institution cannot defend itself from public criticism or debate, it fails to make a case for itself. We do not play softball with public policy. We ask hard question, and demand answers, and if we don't get good answers, we change the policy.

Further, we don't need to see how bad an institution will be before we can reasonably decide that it will be too bad to keep. The Judiciary Act system is so bad that there is no reason to get it up and running to "test it". The writing is on the wall for all to read. Everyone looking at the wall is reading it. It's a pity some people refuse to look at the wall.

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

Application for Judgeship

Post by michelmanen »

Beathan,

You wrote:

[quote:2g1601iq]I see this claim. I don't belive it. You came to the CDS seeking an office (with the PJSP). You have now switched which office you are seeking. However, there never was a time when you were not seeking an office.[/quote:2g1601iq]

I have already given a detailed reply to a similar accusation, reply which began as follows:

[quote:2g1601iq]1. In a conversation with Ashcroft a few weeks ago, I mentioned that I strongly believed in the notion of active participation of citizens in the public life of their community. I was then asked if I wanted to put my principles into practice and apply either for a judgeship or for a position on the PJSP. I asked him where the need was greater, and he stated: "The PJSP".

2. I proceeded to contact Gwyn and applied for a position on the PJSP.[/quote:2g1601iq]

The fact that you do not believe me is irrelevant. You can check the facts with both Ashcroft and Gwyn.

You further wrote:

[quote:2g1601iq]Perhaps as a general rule, given that we have an established and stable population, we should not allow any person not qualified to vote to hold any office. The RA, in its wisdom, taking into accound the speed at which life in the CDS moves, has placed a 28 day waiting period on citizen voting rights. I see no harm in extending this period to include office-seeking as well. Such a change would be wise. It would give clear and specific guidance to citizens.[/quote:2g1601iq]

I have replied to a previous remark on this topic as follows:

[quote:2g1601iq]3. The issue of residency requirements is also important. We do not have at present such a requirement. One of us raised this issue last month, well after the RA ratified the Judicature Act, but it was not picked on for discussion and debate. It only became a hot potato when I applied for judgeship and Ashcroft said that he knows a few people who are ready to also apply, in order to make sure that we could not do so. So, those who support this would argue: "See? No one applied? The system doesn't work. Let's gut it!" Well, of course it doesn't if they come up with new tricks to avoid interested people to apply and make it work! How is that fair - to come up with new rules we all hadn't agreed on in the first place- with the express purpose to make the legal system fail?[/quote:2g1601iq]

You finally wrote:

[quote:2g1601iq]Michel -- a lot of this discussion has been about checking facts, and the need that we do so. I hope that you have now come to the recognition that my echoing a residency requirement for office seeking was not an attempt by me to torpedoe the Judiciary Act. Rather, it was my statement, as a newcomer, that I accepted the concern of longtime residents that newcomers learn about the CDS before presuming to seek to run it. [/quote:2g1601iq]

Let us, for argument's sake, say that I accept that the timing of your raising this issue had nothing to do with the fact that I told you I was applying for a judgeship position and your statement that this legal system will never be allowed to be implemented. In such a case, you must also come to the recognition that my stating that devising such a requirement retroactively for individuals now aplying for judgeship positions (besides being unfair and violating any notion of democratic legitimacy adn the rule of law) will only have as result the effective stifling of our legal system, and our inability to assess it under that "harsher standard" you speak of. I am entirely in favour of us debating residency requirements for public office at the appropriate time and place, vote on it in accordance with our democratic rules, and apply whatever we decide on from then onwards.

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

Repeal of the Judiciary Act

Post by michelmanen »

Beathtan,

You wrote:

[quote:yhyyt9oi]Further, we don't need to see how bad an institution will be before we can reasonably decide that it will be too bad to keep. The Judiciary Act system is so bad that there is no reason to get it up and running to "test it". [/quote:yhyyt9oi]

This is the crux of the matter. You firmly believe this and are using any and all means necessary so that we may not be able "to get [the legal system] up and running to "test it"". I, among others, believe that it is our duty, as CDS citizens, to get the democratically legitimated legal system up and running, as approved and directed by our only elected institution, the RA, in order to test its worthiness in practice, in light of your "harsher standard", as opposed to simply assessing its "goodness" or "badness" theoretically, on paper.

We stand on the side of democracy, fairness, and the rule of law. You oppose us, because you have already decided, on your own accord, that out legal system "will be too bad to keep". We have no intention to break CDS rules and give in to your pressure and incessant exhortations before actually testing in practice our legal system. This is where our disagreement begins and ends.

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

Post by Beathan »

Michel wrote [quote:1orts1m7]Let us, for argument's sake, say that I accept that the timing of your raising this issue had nothing to do with the fact that I told you I was applying for a judgeship position and your statement that this legal system will never be allowed to be implemented. In such a case, you must also come to the recognition that my stating that devising such a requirement retroactively for individuals now aplying for judgeship positions (besides being unfair and violating any notion of democratic legitimacy adn the rule of law) will only have as result the effective stifling of our legal system, and our inability to assess it under that "harsher standard" you speak of. I am entirely in favour of us debating residency requirements for public office at the appropriate time and place, vote on it in accordance with our democratic rules, and apply whatever we decide on from then onwards.[/quote:1orts1m7]

I disagree entirely. I am on record saying that I would be comfortable with at least four longtime residents filling the role of "judge" -- Gwynneth, Justice, Moon and Luda. Based on his superb reasoning in his post on banishments, I would add Diderot to this list. We do not lack talent, even if we lack lawyers. Again, I ask, what is so special about lawyers?

Let me answer that. Only a lawyer could be expected to navigate the Code of Procedure. So I ask, what is so special aobut the Code of Procedure?

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

Application for Judgeship

Post by michelmanen »

Beathan,

You wrote:

[quote:2kz6fqkb]I am on record saying that I would be comfortable with at least four longrime residents filling the role of "judge" -- Gwynneth, Justice, Moon and Luda. Based on his superb reasoning in his post on banishments, I would add Diderot to this list. We do not lack talent, even if we lack lawyers. Again, I ask, what is so special about lawyers? [/quote:2kz6fqkb]

There is absolutely nothing special about lawyers besides their ability to grasp legal issues - skill which, however, is by no means exclusive to them. The simple fact of the matter is that none of the citizens you mention has applied or manifested their intention to apply for a judgeship position. Should any two of them do so, I will gladly end my attempt to become a judge, given the fact that, even without me, our legal system would then have the opportunity to be tested in practice, in light of your "harsher standard".

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

[quote="Beathan":35hoqvmp]What we have is a community having real, legitimate heartburn about the Judiciary Act. As the Act is implemented, it becomes clear that it is not what people thought it would be -- and not something they would have supported had they seen what was coming. (Granted, I was not here -- I am relying on conversations I have had with several citizens who were, who supported the act, and who have changed their minds.) This is the way democracies work. The greatest genius of a democracy is that it can change its mind.[/quote:35hoqvmp]I'm curious as to how you intend to achieve this. Posting on the forums is one thing, how do you actually think you will effect change? As I've noted elsewhere you don't seem to be doing anything to get the CSDF reps onside, I don't know if you're holding discussions with the DPU. Do you think that Justice's proposal (which I see you are supporting) can command 4 out of 5 votes at the RA? Or are you pinning your hopes on the election in January?

I'd be interested to know who says they supported the Act and who now doesn't (but only if they want to be identified of course). So far I've only seen contributions from people who've always opposed the JA or who weren't in the CDS when we had the discussion. Who has changed their mind?

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

Post by Beathan »

Pat asks me [quote:gpjt342w]I'm curious as to how you intend to achieve this. Posting on the forums is one thing, how do you actually think you will effect change?[/quote:gpjt342w]

I don't think I have the power to effect change. I have no office, no administrative or legislative or judicial authority. All I have is the ability to speak and persuade by posting on the forums. I am using what I have as best I can to accomplish something that I think is critically important. I have been criticized simultaneously for doing too much and doing too little. My only response is, I am doing as best I can with what I have to work with.

Pat asks me [quote:gpjt342w]As I've noted elsewhere you don't seem to be doing anything to get the CSDF reps onside, I don't know if you're holding discussions with the DPU. [/quote:gpjt342w]

This is not really fair. I have approached you inworld to discuss this matter. Unfortunately, we were both too busy to talk. I reinvite that conversation. However, I am concern that you are too invested to make good progress on this matter. That is more a concern I have with you than with the CSDF -- although I think that the CSDF will suffer at the polls given this leadership position to resist needed change.

I have not seen Seattle inworld since the start of this debate. I have found his contribution to these forums to be measured, sound and reasonable. I would definitely invite a discussion with Mr. Seattle -- would welcome it -- see great hope in it. I would similarly welcome a discussion with Moon or any other interested member of the CSDF.

I have discussed these matters inworld with members of the DPU -- but not disriminately with the DPU. I am like Socrates, walking around Athens and annoying people with questions about Justice. In the end, Socrates was forced to drink hemlock. I am afraid I might be doomed to a similar fate, but I hope my ideas will survive me.

[quote:gpjt342w]Do you think that Justice's proposal (which I see you are supporting) can command 4 out of 5 votes at the RA? Or are you pinning your hopes on the election in January? [/quote:gpjt342w]

Well, one or the other certainly. I have said as much. I think that anyone who reads the Code of Procedure will vote against the Act and the people who gave us the Act (provided those officers have not reconsidered their position). Currently, I am doing my best to get as many citizens to read the Code as possible. It makes my case more clearly than I ever could.

Pat wrote [quote:gpjt342w]I'd be interested to know who says they supported the Act and who now doesn't (but only if they want to be identified of course). So far I've only seen contributions from people who've always opposed the JA or who weren't in the CDS when we had the discussion. Who has changed their mind?[/quote:gpjt342w]

Well, the Act passed 5-0. The DPU members of the RA are now seeking to amend (or possibly repeal) the Act. At least Claude and Justice are seeking modifications to the Act. That is 2 people. We also see opposition from people who tacitly supported the act. Thus, we are hearing from the "silent majority" who looked to the RA to get this right and now see just how wrong things went. (I do think it is curious, even hypocritical, how supporters of the Act appeal the the "silent majority" as supporting the Act, but then criticize and dismiss people who speak up in opposition from that "silent majority" on the ground that they did not speak up sooner.)

I think it is unfair, because of both the work that went into the Act and the personalities of the workers, to expect the people at the core of the effort to change their minds. True believers rarely change their minds, even when the citizenry as a whole has done so. This is why see see power shifts in democratic elections.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Re: Reasoned and reasonable debate

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="michelmanen":2fnsnird]By the way, Gxeremio, I want to thank you for helping us return to a reasoned and reasonable level of conversation. It had gotten completely out of hand - and I had my role in bringing this about - and we sorely needed someone who would bring back a measure of civility and sanity in it and remind us all just why we are all here. I, for one, really appreciate your contribution.[/quote:2fnsnird]

Thanks so much for your kind words. In the midst of a debate that is so important and that has become so heated, it is easy to forget that we are lucky to be part of such a community that is intelligent, experienced, and often times quite humane.
I think Fernando's advice (to say what our interests are) is wise indeed, since it is clear we have different principles and priorities and may never reconcile these to everyone's satisfaction. It is also important that when sharing our goals, we not project them on others or make it the responsibility of others to make our goals happen. For example, it is appropriate for me to advocate for and make sure there is a place at the table for a future Esperanto-language sim that's part of the CDS. It is inappropriate for me to force others to help with that goal. Similarly, it is appropriate to try to ensure that a thriving and meaningful legal community will take root in the CDS. It is inappropriate to force such a system to the detriment of others.
To weigh in for a moment on the question of the thread (whether newbies should be allowed to hold office), it makes sense to me that the requirements for working for the government be at least as stringent, if not moreso, as the requirements for voting. So if the voting requirement is 28+ days of citizenship, then the officeholding requirement should be at least that, if not stricter. Either the officeholding requirement should be more clear and stringent, or the voting requirement should be relaxed.

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

Temporary requirements for public positions

Post by michelmanen »

Your position is entirey consistent. As I said before, leet us debate the pros and cons in the appropriate forum and have the RA vote on it. My only caveat is that any such change from the present situation cannot be applied retroactively, to citizens who have already applied for public office or will apply before any such changes are enacted by the RA. Retroactive legislation violates principles of fairness and the rule of law; it is not acceptable iRL; nor should it be in-world.

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

Post by Beathan »

Michel wrote [quote:1yszmblm]Your position is entirey consistent. As I said before, leet us debate the pros and cons in the appropriate forum and have the RA vote on it. My only caveat is that any such change from the present situation cannot be applied retroactively, to citizens who have already applied for public office or will apply before any such changes are enacted by the RA. Retroactive legislation violates principles of fairness and the rule of law; it is not acceptable iRL; nor should it be in-world.[/quote:1yszmblm]

I disagree that people seeking office should be grandfathered in based on the time of their application. An application is not a done deal. Just as the expected requirements of a RL job can change after the job has been advertise, the requirements of a CDS office can so change. I think that people currently holding office should not lose their office because of a new rule (to do otherwise would be to effectively impeach officers without following the impeachment process) -- but applicants only have an expectancy of an office, not a right to an office, so there is no unfairness involved in redefining what the citizens want their office-holders to be like and judging all applicant accordingly. Michel's position would be arbitrary -- different applicants would be judged differently based on the accident of the timing of submission of the application. We should determine what standards we want to apply and then apply those standards fairly and equally to all applicants -- and the relevant time for application of those standards is the time of assessment of the applicant pool for selection of officers.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”