[quote="Dianne":1alq5pys][quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1alq5pys]... the creation of a functioning judiciary has been delayed yet agian. ....[/quote:1alq5pys]This phrase keeps coming up again and again and it just makes me wonder what the big deal is.[/quote:1alq5pys]
All things being equal, it is always better to do something that needs to be done sooner, rather than later. At this juncture, I do not believe that there are any reasons to believe that anything is relevantly unequal in this regard.
[quote:1alq5pys]We are talking about a complete Judiciary system and fitting it into an already extant and working state with a rudimentary judicial system of it's own that in my humble opinion has worked very well the very few times it has been called upon. What exactly is this "need for speed?"[/quote:1alq5pys]
Many would disagree that it worked well on the two occasions that it was called on to work, and it may well be that the fewness of the cases that it had to decide was partly due to the lack of any formalised procedure by which cases can be brought, meaning that fewer disputes were resolved by our judiciary than needed resolving. I have written at length elsewhere on the problems with our former judicial system.
[quote:1alq5pys]I am certainly not against the establishment of a judicial system, but why the rush, and why the seeming need to present a perfectly crafted "bill to end all bills" that won't be altered or changed?[/quote:1alq5pys]
Are you suggesting that it is a [i:1alq5pys]bad[/i:1alq5pys] thing to try to perfect a bill before it is passed, rather than pass something in a rush and have to change it later? Is that not the exact opposite of what you have been claiming elsewhere?
[quote:1alq5pys]IMO we should start with a simple constitutional amendment that establishes the need for a Judicial branch of government in the first place and argue about that for a while.[/quote:1alq5pys]
Do you mean "should have started", since the Judiciary Act is now law, subject to the revisions ordered by the Scientific Council?
In any event, what exactly would this acheive? What precisely would be the effect of such a constitutional amendment? The idea of introducing a judicial system piecemeal was debated at length and rejected as being unworkable.
[quote:1alq5pys]Then if that is approved, we can argue about the details of the Judicial appointments based on our now improved understanding of how this [b:1alq5pys]new branch of government[/b:1alq5pys] fits in with the others. [/quote:1alq5pys]
Why on earth do people keep calling the judiciary a "branch of government"? A judicial system may be an institution of state, but, certainly in the CDS, and any other civilised nation, it is most certainly not a branch of government: it is independent of government.
But what exactly do you think is wrong with the understanding of how the judiciary that we now have fits in with our other branches of government? Did Gwyneth not explain it very well indeed in the Scientific Council meeting the transcript of which was posted recently?
[quote:1alq5pys]Is the Judiciary a part of the Philosophical branch or a separate branch as others have suggested?[/quote:1alq5pys]
I cannot see how the answer to that can be unclear: our new judiciary is an autonomous institution of state, and not part of any of our previously existing branches of government. Its relationship with all of the other elements of the state is clearly and precisely set out in the Judiciary Act.
[quote:1alq5pys] The answer to that question contains the information needed to answer the questions posted on this thread about association and bias.
If the Judiciary is a part of the Philosophical branch, then its members may not serve on the other branches, but may be members of political parties, that's already in the constitution.[/quote:1alq5pys]
The Scientific Council ordered, did it not, that the Judiciary Act be amended so as to contain an express prohibition on members of the judiciary being members of any other institution of state?
[quote:1alq5pys] If it's not, then how does it fit into the three way veto that the original three branches of government have?[/quote:1alq5pys]
The judiciary does not, nor ought it, veto anything. It is not a political institution, but a judicial one. Its function is to decide cases brought before it in accordance with our law. That function is not compatible with exercising a power of veto over anything, or any power of veto being exercised over it in relation to anything (except certain ancillary administrative functions, perhaps).
[quote:1alq5pys]does it not unbalance that stable triangle to an extent?[/quote:1alq5pys]
How, exactly, do you imagine that it does that?
In any event, as I have already stated, the judiciary debate is in the past: the democratically elected legislature are all agreed that the Judiciary Act should be passed, and the Scientific Council ratified it after deletion of one clause, ordering the Representative Assembly to amend it in certain respects. All that remains is for the Representative Assembly to make those amendments and for the Scientific Council to appoint the people who have already applied to the new positions that it creates. I find it odd that you are now making these points, since you have already stated that you agree with all but some very specific parts of our new judiciary (those issues being ones that had already been debated at length).
It is time to move forwards, not back, and to embrace the great benefits that a proper judiciary will bring us, whilst we focus on the new issues that face us, such as developing and populating Colonia Nova, and expanding to the mainland through franchulates. As with the Chancellor, there were some aspects of the way in which the constitution was set out in relation to the Chancellor with which I did not agree, but we have a chancellor now, and, since the system seems to be working well enough, I do not dwell on those issues, but look forwards to what we seek to acheive in the future. I cannot see why the position should be any different in relation to the judiciary. There comes a time when, whatever one's views, one must accept what has been decided by established procedure, and move on. Now is that time in relation to our new judiciary.
[i:1alq5pys]Edit[/i:1alq5pys]: Dianne, from reading your post in the Scientific Council Announcements forum, you seem to think that the Judiciary Act was not a constitutional amendment, which might be what made you think that the rules were not being followed. I do not know why you think that the Judiciary Act was not a constitutional amendment, since it expressly purported to amend the text of the constitution. It [i:1alq5pys]was[/i:1alq5pys] a constitutional amendment: it inserts new passages into the written constitution. It could not have been passed without a 2/3rds majority in the Representative Assembly.
It was never intended to be a "patch", as you wrote elsewhere, on our existing constitution, but a carefully planned amendment to part of it. Perhaps you were confused by the form of the Judiciary Act (I followed the British convention of having one legislative Act amend a document by specifically stating what sections are to be removed and inserted); were you under the impression that the [i:1alq5pys]name[/i:1alq5pys] meant that it was not a constitutional amendment (such that it ought to have been called the "Judiciary Amendment")? Perhaps this is a clash of protocols, but it is a matter of form, rather than substance, since (1) it is clear that the Act purports to amend the constitution, and thus is a constitutional amendment, and (2) the Act was passed with the requisite majority. Since no express stipulation of the constitution requires constitutional amendments to be in any particular form, it cannot be invalid for that reason alone.