Re-writing the Judiciary Act

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Dianne":2qqd0tch]Ashcroft, you simply write too much in terms of volume than any one person can begin to answer. You should be careful you are not stifling your critics out of sheer exhaustion rather than points won or lost in a debate.

Perhaps it's your legal training but it's really not necessary to respond to every single sentence of every single post with a counter sentence. It just makes the debate defuse and impossible to follow. [/quote:2qqd0tch]

I do not see what alterntaive if there is: if there are many points that each require response, what else is one to do but respond to all of them? By not responding to points with which I disagree, I am acquiescing in them, and thereby enabling the other party to win by default.

If one makes complex arguments (whether complex by design or, as is more often the case, accidentally), one must be prepared to address an equally complex response.

[Dianne]

[quote="Gwyneth Llewelyn":31eyl56x]... So, the SC has actually [i:31eyl56x]two[/i:31eyl56x] powers regarding the bills approved by the RA. It can veto it (which happened twice). [i:31eyl56x]Or[/i:31eyl56x] it can rewrite it and resubmit it back to the RA for approval.

Notice the wording of the Constitution, Art. III, Section 8: [quote:31eyl56x]The Philosophic branch may veto [b:31eyl56x][i:31eyl56x]or[/i:31eyl56x][/b:31eyl56x] rewrite and resubmit a bill or constitutional amendment if it is in violation of any of the founding documents.[/quote:31eyl56x] (emphasis mine)...[/quote:31eyl56x]Sorry Gwyn

Perhaps this is my mistake then but I thought we gave up this power the last time it was debated in the forums.

I thought the original wording was that we could re-write the bill (as above) and this was challenged when we had those debates about the "narly powers" that the SC supposedly had. it was my understanding that a change was made so that we could only send the bill back with [i:31eyl56x]suggestions[/i:31eyl56x] for revision and that the re-write had to be done by the lawmakers themselves. The reasoning being that the SC should not have the power to "create law" that this power should rest alone with the legislative assembly.

Did this not happen? Or perhaps we just discussed that and never acted on it? If it still exists it certainly seems like a bad loophole in our law system. It doesn't seem appropriate to me that the SC should in fact be revising laws in this way given the way it's constitutional mandate is explained in general terms. It also says "rewrite" not "revise" so we could in essence legally rewrite the law to be anything we want if that's the case.

[Justice Soothsayer]

In the exercise of its veto and power to "rewrite", the SC suggested two minor changes to the judiciary bill for it to pass constitutional muster - first, remove the language restricting members of the Public Judicial Scrutiny Panel from belonging to a faction, and second, to prohibit members of the RA from serving in the judicial branch or PJSP.

Ashcroft, please post a mercifully brief summary of why the RA should adopt your latest version of the judiciary bill rather than simply making the two minor changes suggested by the SC.

[Aliasi Stonebender]

[quote="Dianne":bxapji5k]
Perhaps this is my mistake then but I thought we gave up this power the last time it was debated in the forums.
[/quote:bxapji5k]

I think it is more: it's not a "power" exclusive to the SC. Anyone can submit a bill to the RA after all; the difference is the SC can veto a bill and submit one based on that bill.

Of course, if the SC flat-out vetoed a bill, technically, ANYONE could submit a rewrite...

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Justice Soothsayer":3mo3xabu]In the exercise of its veto and power to "rewrite", the SC suggested two minor changes to the judiciary bill for it to pass constitutional muster - first, remove the language restricting members of the Public Judicial Scrutiny Panel from belonging to a faction, and second, to prohibit members of the RA from serving in the judicial branch or PJSP.

Ashcroft, please post a mercifully brief summary of why the RA should adopt your latest version of the judiciary bill rather than simply making the two minor changes suggested by the SC.[/quote:3mo3xabu]

The latest version of the Judiciary Bill does make the changes required by the SC, but it also introduces compensating changes to ensure that judicial independence is maintained.

As you know, the reason for the faction prohibition that the Scientific Council struck out was to preserve the impartiality of the judiciary by preserving the impartiality of the members of the PJSP. The Scientific Council held that the faction prohibition was too blunt an instrument for doing that. Therefore, what I have done in my latest version of the draft is to create the means by which a less blunt system can be implimented, by making the Code of Judicial Ethics binding on members of the PJSP as well as on judges. That code should set out more precise requirements for impartiality that should address the principal concerns about partisanship on the PSJP without what the SC held was the blunt instrument of prohibiting faction members.

The whole point, no doubt you will recall, of the PJSP was to maintain judicial independence whilst having a popular input into judicial selection and oversight. If there was no code of ethics applicable to the PJSP that placed some limits on partisanship, there would be no reason at all to have a separate PJSP, rather than leaving judicial selection to the RA. The RA on the last occasion agreed with that principle by passing the 29th of September version of the draft; that version being too blunt for the Scientific Council's tastes, my new draft enables the same to be done with more discernment.

As to the prohibition on members of the RA serving as judges, the problem was not limited to members of the RA, but also the executive, as well as cross-membership of the legislature/executive and the PJSP, so I drafted some sections that clearly set out exactly what jobs that members of the judiciary may not have simultaneously, absorbing the requirement that you stipulated on the last occasion that the Chief Judge should not also be the Chair of the Judiciary Commission.

In any event, of course, since I have already taken the trouble to make the new draft, unless there is some serious problem with it, which I see no reason to believe that there will be, it is simply easier to use work that has already been done rather than try to find another way to incorporate the revisions required by the SC into the Act. I do hope that that explanation is all clear; do reply if you have any further queries.

[Pelanor Eldrich]

I wholeheartedly support Ashcroft's latest refinement. Barring that, I also support Justice's minimum required changes.
If we don't get a system passed on 10/7, I hereby submit the following to appear on the agenda for the subsequent meeting:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[b:5qohuh1k]Dispute Resolution Bill - Paper/Rock/Scissors[/b:5qohuh1k]

In the event of accusations of lawbreaking in the CDS, both plaintiff and defendant will be IMed by the Dean for a choice of rock, paper or scissors. In the event of a tie, e.g. both parties choose rock, the process will be repeated until a winner is chosen.

Adjudication:
Rock beats Scissors
Paper beats Rock
Scissors beats Paper

Sentencing:
Sentencing is at the sole discretion of the SC using that branches internal procedures and penal code/system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why have a judiciary? Who cares? Who are we going to prosecute, we've only had a single case to date?

I have never been in RL court. I am very thankful, nonetheless, that a judiciary is present in my two countries. I *need* a working and reliable judiciary to conduct my financial service business in SL.

Here's a list of citizens who desire a legal system for business reasons:

Pelanor Eldrich - Eldrich Financial (Marktplatz)
Lee Dimsum - GOM (Marktplatz)
Zeus Zeitkin - Job Finder, Inc.
Diderot Mirabeau - Mirabeau Scribe (Full parcel business HQ)
Midas Commons - Manus Financial
Rubiyat Shatner: Ars Virtua (interested in franchulates under a legal umbrella)

These are just the business owners. Let us not forget the multitude of non service business disputes that need resolution. The griefers, the terrorists, the corrupt politicians. We need a judiciary because Linden Labs is unwilling and unable to resolve disputes in a timely and neutral manner. Robin Linden has gone on podcast record saying she would like local control/resident run jurisdiction for solving disputes.

But why is this needed? Look at my business, simple case.

You want to borrow $L10,000 from me and you do not own nor want to own mainland. (Happens every day)

[b:5qohuh1k]Question:[/b:5qohuh1k] How on *earth* am I supposed to do this transaction without a huge probablility of getting ripped off without recourse?

[b:5qohuh1k]Answer: [/b:5qohuh1k]I can't do this, nor many other types of RL contractual business without a judiciary. The same goes for my customers. They want more than just a smile, a "trust me", and some alts as references. They want the trust and protection that comes from a functioning judiciary/legal system.

Are people going to be dragged to court every day? Will it represent a profound change in the CDS to John Q. Citizen? I doubt 90% of the population will notice much day to day difference.