PCA: Judiciary Repeal

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:30 pm

1. The Judiciary Act is hereby repealed

2. The SC is directed to create, within 21 days, a mechanism for adjudicating cases.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:52 pm

Despite my skepticism of the Judiciary Act, I think this might be too extreme.

Rather, I would propose that the S.C. be charged with reviewing the Judiciary Act and proposing simplifying changes within 21 days.

I also think that the RA should take up Publius's proposal, posted in the Judiciary discussion.

Beathan

Gxeremio Dimsum · Post by **Gxeremio Dimsum** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:00 am

Whether the Judiciary Act is repealed or not, perhaps there should be a scheduled "transition period" in which the SC still hears cases (such as the ones that are waiting) while the Judiciary is formed/reformed.

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:42 am

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":285nsh35]1. The Judiciary Act is hereby repealed

2. The SC is directed to create, within 21 days, a mechanism for adjudicating cases.[/quote:285nsh35]

Do you seriously want to destroy all the work that we have all put into this because of a controversy over the qualification requirements? Or, given that you have proposed a bill that preserves the status quo with one or two amendments, do you intend this to be no more than a vehicle for discussion?

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:38 pm

I have posted a detailed explanation of the genesis of both my proposals in the Judiciary Discussion area.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:11 pm

In light of Ashcroft's proposed substitute to my other proposal, I'm withdrawing this at this time.

Ranma Tardis · Post by **Ranma Tardis** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:10 am

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":1fstc0d9]1. The Judiciary Act is hereby repealed

2. The SC is directed to create, within 21 days, a mechanism for adjudicating cases.[/quote:1fstc0d9]

Second time inputting this message, The Judiciary has not functioned at all and has become a debating club on legal terms. It is completely dysfunctional.......
I was opposed to the Judicial Act from the start but gave in due to Ashcroftâ€™s persuasion. Well it seems like I was right after all. We need to repeal this act and restore the SC to its proper place. The SC and Guild are the two checks and balances to the RA. If these are taken away the RA will gain complete power unchecked from anything.
Lesson learned the constitution needs to be harder to change than a simple vote from 5 people. I am beginning to think that a Constitution Convention is the only way to save the CDS from being ripped apart.

Aliasi Stonebender · Post by **Aliasi Stonebender** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:12 am

I have submitted this as a bill for the next RA meeting.

Despite my on-record opposition to the Judiciary Act, I'm not being entirely serious when I submit it. However, I have reason to believe the more moderate proposals shall be submitted, and I wish to make sure the RA consideral all possiblities; one way or another we [i:yjwluvqf]must[/i:yjwluvqf] resolve this sitution, be it "stay the course", "modify", or "repeal", and it would be nice to do it soon; heated debate is one thing, but when things degrade to the point that [i:yjwluvqf]I[/i:yjwluvqf] look like a voice of reason, something's wrong.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:33 am

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":1lrp0toy]I have submitted this as a bill for the next RA meeting.

Despite my on-record opposition to the Judiciary Act, I'm not being entirely serious when I submit it. However, I have reason to believe the more moderate proposals shall be submitted, and I wish to make sure the RA consideral all possiblities; one way or another we [i:1lrp0toy]must[/i:1lrp0toy] resolve this sitution, be it "stay the course", "modify", or "repeal", and it would be nice to do it soon; heated debate is one thing, but when things degrade to the point that [i:1lrp0toy]I[/i:1lrp0toy] look like a voice of reason, something's wrong.[/quote:1lrp0toy]I agree with the need for clarity (though not with the amendment, of course!) I hope that this will be defeated 5-0 and that the CSDF compromise proposition will be supported. That will send a very clear message about how we should resolve this.

Aliasi Stonebender · Post by **Aliasi Stonebender** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:47 pm

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":1xomppq0]I agree with the need for clarity (though not with the amendment, of course!) I hope that this will be defeated 5-0 and that the CSDF compromise proposition will be supported. That will send a very clear message about how we should resolve this.[/quote:1xomppq0]

Oh, I would be content with such; the point is not to pass this precisely but make the RA pass something.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:37 pm

I remain amazed by the frequency I am told, by longtime CDS citizens, that they never liked the Judiciary Act and would never have supported it if there had been an alternative. At the same time, no one in a position of authority is seriously considering or proposing repealing the Act. Why is there this disconnect? We now have an alternative. We have several alternatives -- and we have the collective intelligence and interest, surely, to develop several more if need be.

Surely, the current situation is like the early US implementing the Articles of Confederation, which were too complex and which never worked. People then said that they wished there had been some alternative. However, they got together and put one together -- and it has lasted, more or less intact, for more than two hundred years. It is time to repeal the Judiciary Act.

Beathan

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:59 pm

The Articles of Confederation were given the oportunity to prove themselves in light of the "harsher standard" of reality. They failed. Teey were replaced.

You are using all means at your disposal to prevent our judiciary to have the same opportunity.

This is telling indeed....

Gxeremio Dimsum · Post by **Gxeremio Dimsum** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:56 pm

[quote="michelmanen":1pd5rrzw]The Articles of Confederation were given the oportunity to prove themselves in light of the "harsher standard" of reality. They failed. Teey were replaced.

You are using all means at your disposal to prevent our judiciary to have the same opportunity.

This is telling indeed....[/quote:1pd5rrzw]

As I posted in the other thread, there seems to be no indication that the other proponents of enacting the law are willing to submit to a trial period, at the end of which all options are on the table. So, I must join Beathan in asking for the repeal of this system before it becomes any more entrenched.

If it were enacted, here are some reasons I would not use it, and would probably abandon my land and renounce my CDS citizenship rather than submit to a trial under this system:
- I do not trust the Chief (and only as of now) Judge to act in an unbiased manner towards me, nor to deal with any case with the open mind needed for the job.
- I do not want to pay the costs to hire a lawyer, in addition to the court costs, which have only become evident as necessary recently. Worse, if I lost I would have to pick up the costs for the other person in addition to any other punishment levied.
- I could not confidently take part in this system, even as the client of a lawyer, without spending literally hours preparing to understand the procedural requirements.

These are in addition to my concerns about why this is an inappropriately complex system that threatens our community in a number of ways.

I urge the RA to take up this matter at its next meeting, and repeal the Judiciary Act.

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:24 pm

Gxeremio,

This is the entire point of the Commission as currently proposed. The legal system start working, the Commission makes its assessment based on that and on public consultations and comparison with the Adjudication system, then all options are on the table - from total repreal to no change at all.

Is this not what you said previously you agreeed with and could support?

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:29 pm

Michel --

The point of the proposal is not to get the Judicial System working. The point of the proposal is to assess the Act. We can do a lot of assessment based on the Act, the debate, the qualification process and requirements, and the Code of Procedure without ever seeing the Judicial System in action. In fact, I think we can do all the assessing we need to do without seeing the Judicial System in Action.

In fact, it would be unfair -- giving in to "fait accompli" arguments -- if we don't suspend the Judicial System. This is why Justice's proposal to suspend the Code is so important. However, better than suspending the Code, we should suspend the Act. Suspending the Act would stop the judicial appointment process (which is one point of hot dispute -- and one that many people feel is broken), and would restore some administration of justice (through the SC) while we take time to sort things out.

Beathan

CDS Discussion

PCA: Judiciary Repeal

PCA: Judiciary Repeal

Necessary repeal?

Re: PCA: Judiciary Repeal

Re: PCA: Judiciary Repeal

Repeal of the Judiciary Act

Re: Repeal of the Judiciary Act

Trial Period