[quote="Publius Crabgrass":18b9ze0b]As to the constitutionality of the new rules, and in particular Rule 3, I would be inclined to agree with you [i:18b9ze0b]if the judiciary had established a meaningful system of appellate review[/i:18b9ze0b]. The Chief Judge argues elsewhere that as of right now he must be the sole judge of whether he is acting reasonably, since the SC's appellate jurisdiction is narrowly tailored to higher constitutional questions. I happen to believe that judidical unreasonableness=unconstitutionality.[/quote:18b9ze0b]I'm afraid the question is not whether the Chief Judge is behaving reasonably or not. The question is whether this Bill is constitutionally sound or not. I've based my conclusions on the provisions of the Constitution. Show me where it says, [i:18b9ze0b]in the Constitution[/i:18b9ze0b], that the SC has the right to hear appeals if the Courts of Common Jurisdiction fail to establish an appeals procedure. If you can show me that you have a case; if you can't then this is really an expression of what you would hope to have rather than what we do have.
[quote:18b9ze0b]A judicial system that allows its sole judge the unchecked discretion to be the sole decider of whether that same judge is acting reasonable is not an appropriately functioning system. Since there is only one judge at the moment, and no appellate review within the judicial system, this leaves the SC as the guardian of the rule of reason.[/quote:18b9ze0b]I agree we need more than one judge. This is a good reason for proceeding with the qualification and recruitment process that has been put in place. If it fails to deliver the two more judges that you have decided need to be in place, we should review the application process.
[quote:18b9ze0b]The SC should conclude that the Special Commission bill is constitutional, reserving the right in the future exercise of its appellate function to conclude that appeals about unreasonable judges may be unconstitutional [i:18b9ze0b]as applied[/i:18b9ze0b] if the judiciary establishes a meaningful system of appellate review.[/quote:18b9ze0b]The SC cannot conclude this for the reasons I outlined in my ealier post. If the RA wishes to give the SC wider powers to receive appeals than those determined by the Constitution then it needs to pass a Constitutional Amendment to that effect. We can't 'wish into existence' the system we'd like to have when the Bill that was passed doesn't take into account the actual Constitutional set up.