Withdrawal from SC nomination

[Jamie Palisades]

Hi all. The degree of divisiveness and revenge that is showing in the current Al-Andalus destroy-the-merger debates is extraordinary to me.
I don't think it's appropriate for me to be on CDS's SC judiciary, if I am taking strong political positions.
But as Chancellor, I was a primary architect of the CDS-AA merger, protecting it from a few RA members who were then the minority, fighting it ... and are now the majority faction trying to undo it.
Both the merger, and constitution changes to deprecate factions (which they also opposed), might be attacked -- like last time -- and I was one of the chief drafters. So my views might be "evidence" in any SC appeal of those matters.

At this time I think I'd be of more use to CDS as a citizen who can speak out, not as a judge. So with my gratitude to the SC for their nomination, and apologies for the inconvenience, I withdraw my name from consideration.

Maybe after this blows over, I can inquire again, if the SC still needs more bodies.
But I believe strongly in an impartial, nonpolitical judiciary. That's not a CDS legal requirement ... unfortunately. Some of our SC leaders have been very political. But I don't think it's appropriate. I would rather be free to talk about the politics, so long as there are strong political attacks on the AA region of CDS. I wish Delia, Claude, Danton & the others the best of luck.

Regards JP

[Aliasi Stonebender]

I regret to hear that, Jamie. I admit, I may be one of the ones you had in mind; I generally stay out of politics per se... but it doesn't stop me from having an opinion and I know I like to express mine. (Ironically, I joined the SC because I was tired of the politics and wished to contribute in a more passive-but-useful way.)

I think part of that, in my case, can be explained through my long association with the CDS. The SC was not, historically, a judiciary body. It was a body that performed the role OF a judiciary if necessary, but the intent was more as a check on momentary populist emotion that quite unfortunately also happened to rend the founding law of what was then just Neufreistadt asunder. (Well, okay, the original intent seemed to be more "keep anything Ulrika didn't like" out, but I like to think we've successfully gotten away from that. )

This also meant that the SC was not a pure judiciary. It still is not, despite now being more reactive in nature. To some extent, it combines the functions of judiciary and Senate-as-originally-intended in the US system. After all, in the United States a judge cannot simply declare a law unconstitutional; a suit must be brought that tests the law. This also means that it's not a particular requirement that the members of the Council ape being emotionless, perfectly neutral law-bots. They're allowed to have opinions and display them, always knowing that if they overreach, they can be recalled through impeachment.

[Jamie Palisades]

Aliasi, for what it is worth, personally I didn't see you as acting politically during your SC term(s).
The basic idea of a judiciary is that it assures citizens that there are some fair limits on what the government can do. Whatever its form, its basic function is served if -- and only if -- it seems to hold itself above the daily partisan fray of RA squabbles.
The SC has the power to overrule RA actions; and has very few controls on its own actions; so it should exercise its power only sparsely. Thus, it should not be filled by people who will treat it like a second legislature.
I felt that I was being drawn into the current legislative debate, so it's inappropriate for me to seek a seat on the SC at this time. That's all. Regards JP

[Soro Dagostino]

I respectfully disagree. Your knowledge and voice are so needed in this time of trouble.

[Jamie Palisades]

You're kind, Soro, but I am not gone. Just not a candidate.
The SC should not hover at RA meetings, tell them what to do, and mutter about whether their various acts are unconstitutional.
Referees must understand that they are not players, and not try to kick the football. The football players are better served when they know that their judges are impartial.
So, while I am in the middle of this controversy about tearing apart the Al-Andalus merger that I helped make -- or kicking out some CDS citizens and putting them in a second-class Bantustan -- I feel that I should speak out. It would be inappropriate for me to serve in a judiciary role at the same time. Thanks, though.
Regards JP