Moderator: SC Moderators
We, the CSDF, have been very concerned about the lack of public support for the Judiciary and the conflict on internal procedures.
We propose that a Judiciary Act Hearing Commission be appointed, under the framework of the also proposed Citizen Participation Bill, to:
1. Investigate the apparent deadlock and determine the reasons for it.
2. Investigate the reasons for public mistrust.
3. Propose eventual modifications to the Judiciary Act to address these issues.
[quote="Moon Adamant":l5aav83s]We, the CSDF, have been very concerned about the lack of public support for the Judiciary and the conflict on internal procedures.
We propose that a Judiciary Act Hearing Commission be appointed, under the framework of the also proposed Citizen Participation Bill, to:
1. Investigate the apparent deadlock and determine the reasons for it.
2. Investigate the reasons for public mistrust.
3. Propose eventual modifications to the Judiciary Act to address these issues.[/quote:l5aav83s]
Perhaps no. 3 should also include determining whether any such modifications are really necessary.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1r16b7ye]Perhaps no. 3 should also include determining whether any such modifications are really necessary.[/quote:1r16b7ye]
Why do you think it is not better for the RA to determine the necessity of the recommendations made by the commission?
[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":374ofrz6]Why do you think it is not better for the RA to determine the necessity of the recommendations made by the commission?[/quote:374ofrz6]
The whole point of the commission is to look in more detail, with more citizen involvement, than the RA alone can. There is no reason why the thing being looked at should not be the question of whether modifications are needed at all.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":yy58tayu]The whole point of the commission is to look in more detail, with more citizen involvement, than the RA alone can. There is no reason why the thing being looked at should not be the question of whether modifications are needed at all.[/quote:yy58tayu]
It seems to me that your vague answer implies that the assumptions specified under #1 and #2 regarding 'public mistrust' and 'apparent deadlock' may not be valid.
For some strange reason this insinuation seems to fly in the face of: (1) Statements by several members of the RA, (2) a survey of citizens opinions recently conducted, (3) protracted and heated discussion between mostly you as the champion of the present model of implementation and around 5-7 other debaters all of which argue persistently against one or more aspects of the model and (4) The failure of the model so far to have attracted any any applicants for the position of judge whatsoever within the original deadline and the likely failure of the model to attract applicants within the extended deadline that have a prior history of citizens of the CDS and who do not have an RL legal background.
Undoubtedly, you will be considering your role in such a commission to be the production of staunch defensorates for the present model dominating in sheer volume of contributions the hearing with posts all of which start with "Why do you ... ?" and accusing those who hold an opposing position to be ignorant or misguided instead of sitting back, listening and actually trying to take in the concerns of the relatively significant group of citizens, who have expressed their concern over your approach.
[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":1a4rc6qt]It seems to me that your vague answer implies that the assumptions specified under #1 and #2 regarding 'public mistrust' and 'apparent deadlock' may not be valid.[/quote:1a4rc6qt]
Incessant opposition by a vocal minority is not the same as "public mistrust". In the phrase "apparant deadlock", the word "apparent" is as important as the word "deadlock".
[quote:1a4rc6qt]Undoubtedly, you will be considering your role in such a commission to be the production of staunch defensorates for the present model dominating in sheer volume of contributions the hearing with posts all of which start with "Why do you ... ?" and accusing those who hold an opposing position to be ignorant or misguided instead of sitting back, listening and actually trying to take in the concerns of the relatively significant group of citizens, who have expressed their concern over your approach.[/quote:1a4rc6qt]
It is evident from this that you have no respect for debate that aims to elicidate truth, as opposed to mock-debate in which people merely blandly state their opinions, the reasoning behind it is not probed in any depth, and the outcome is a vague consensus based on what people believed in the first place, unchallenged, whether the challenge is needed or not, rather than an outcome based upon a rigorous search for the truth of the matter, where no stone is left unturned, and no controversial assumption goes untested.
Guys, the intent behind this proposal was to try to take a little heat out of the current fracas and allow some calm reflection, allow us to assess if there really is a problem and, if so, forge a consensus on what to do about it.
Now, I'm as guilty as the next avatar of occasionally using less than parliamentary language but... do we really need to take chunks out of each other now there's a sensible way forward on the table? I assume both of you agree with this proposal, can we turn down the gas a notch or two?
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2n7p1248]It is evident from this that you have no respect for debate that aims to elicidate truth, as opposed to mock-debate in which people merely blandly state their opinions, the reasoning behind it is not probed in any depth, and the outcome is a vague consensus based on what people believed in the first place, unchallenged, whether the challenge is needed or not, rather than an outcome based upon a rigorous search for the truth of the matter, where no stone is left unturned, and no controversial assumption goes untested.[/quote:2n7p1248]
To paraphrase a familiar figure in the forums "this is just a bland assertion, which is wholly unfounded."
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1y0ed1m0]
Perhaps no. 3 should also include determining whether any such modifications are really necessary.[/quote:1y0ed1m0]
Well, thus the word 'eventual' before 'modifications'...
The Hearing Commission should, in our opinion:
[i:1y0ed1m0]
a) look into tasks 1 and 2 in an impartial manner[/i:1y0ed1m0]
That is why we propose that the framework for this commission be the Citizen Participation Bill: if all concerned citizens can join the commission, then it will surely be impartial.
[i:1y0ed1m0]b) feel unabridged by any previous expectation as to 'desired results'[/i:1y0ed1m0]
This, we feel, is very important if the Commission is expected to work in an impartial manner. Nevertheless, the Judiciary Act is a piece of legislative (and constitutional) text - therefore it is important also to state that the Commission [u:1y0ed1m0]may[/u:1y0ed1m0] decide to suggest modifications to the Judiciary Act.
A couple of points.
1. Fifteen people have weighed in on the forums in one way or another. That's about a quarter of the populace. How many more people need to participate in the process for it to be "valid"?
2. What timeframe do you imagine for this process? I'm concerned that seeking a slow, deliberative solution will inevitably cause this to become politicized. Jon mentioned that the Judiciary has "hijacked" our attention for much of this term. Shall it then also hijack the next election cycle?
[quote="Moon Adamant":3ipnm5he]Well, thus the word 'eventual' before 'modifications'...
The Hearing Commission should, in our opinion:
[i:3ipnm5he]
a) look into tasks 1 and 2 in an impartial manner[/i:3ipnm5he]
That is why we propose that the framework for this commission be the Citizen Participation Bill: if all concerned citizens can join the commission, then it will surely be impartial.
[i:3ipnm5he]b) feel unabridged by any previous expectation as to 'desired results'[/i:3ipnm5he]
This, we feel, is very important if the Commission is expected to work in an impartial manner. Nevertheless, the Judiciary Act is a piece of legislative (and constitutional) text - therefore it is important also to state that the Commission [u:3ipnm5he]may[/u:3ipnm5he] decide to suggest modifications to the Judiciary Act.[/quote:3ipnm5he]
Thank you for the clarification 
[quote="Claude Desmoulins":3dhyl458]1. Fifteen people have weighed in on the forums in one way or another. That's about a quarter of the populace. How many more people need to participate in the process for it to be "valid"?
2. What timeframe do you imagine for this process? I'm concerned that seeking a slow, deliberative solution will inevitably cause this to become politicized. Jon mentioned that the Judiciary has "hijacked" our attention for much of this term. Shall it then also hijack the next election cycle?[/quote:3dhyl458]
The reality is that, with the actions of the present vocal minoirty, without something like what Michel suggested (true entrenchment: a referendum after which there must be lengthy period before anything is changed again), the political agenda of the whole CDS will be dominated by the judiciary indefinitely, come what may.
[quote="Moon Adamant":2dolzfzy]if all concerned citizens can join the commission, then it will surely be impartial.[/quote:2dolzfzy]
In my view this holds true only in so far as all participating citizens are able to have their view represented equally - i.e. not distorted by the amount of time available for one to persistently churn out repetitive contributions.
[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":3abose8g]In my view this holds true only in so far as all participating citizens are able to have their view represented equally - i.e. not distorted by the amount of time available for one to persistently churn out repetitive contributions.[/quote:3abose8g]
The commission should never block valuable contributions by any given person merely because any other given person has little time to contribute. This is equality by levelling-down. What other ultimate conclusion is possible than that any given member who has virtually no time to spend on the commission will be albe to command that the commission do very little at all?
I believe that this act is unnecessary -- and is a dodge and delaying tactic. The issues have been fully aired and discussed. The public reaction to the debate by its participants and observers is coming in. It may actually be in. The solution has already been found in Justice's proposal. Why wait? It is a shame to act with undue haste, make a mistake, and then delay redress by throwing up roadblocks to the solution.
Beathan