Agenda item 3: Judiciary and the other branches

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="Beathan":21zkb1iu]Like so much else with the Judiciary Act, this theory of judicial independence was advocated by Ashcroft and accepted by the CDS for want of alternatives. The CDS, recognizing that Ashcroft had professional expertise that others lacked, deferred to Ashcroft's judgment on these matters, failing to consider other alternatives because no one had or could present them.[/quote:21zkb1iu]This is untrue. We had a debate about judicial independance and considered a number of methods by which judges could be selected. The RA made its decision following that discussion. I resent the accusation, levelled in your post, that we simply deferred to Ash because of his expertise and our lack of it. We're not total dupes.

I agree with Oni on this matter. Without judicial independance you don't have a judicial system. Judges need to be free of political interference and popular opinion in order to deliver judgements that are based solely on the evidence. We achieve that through a qualification and appointment system controlled by an independant judiciary.

[Ranma Tardis]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":3rihuodw][quote="Beathan":3rihuodw]Like so much else with the Judiciary Act, this theory of judicial independence was advocated by Ashcroft and accepted by the CDS for want of alternatives. The CDS, recognizing that Ashcroft had professional expertise that others lacked, deferred to Ashcroft's judgment on these matters, failing to consider other alternatives because no one had or could present them.[/quote:3rihuodw]This is untrue. We had a debate about judicial independance and considered a number of methods by which judges could be selected. The RA made its decision following that discussion. I resent the accusation, levelled in your post, that we simply deferred to Ash because of his expertise and our lack of it. We're not total dupes.

I agree with Oni on this matter. Without judicial independance you don't have a judicial system. Judges need to be free of political interference and popular opinion in order to deliver judgements that are based solely on the evidence. We achieve that through a qualification and appointment system controlled by an independant judiciary.[/quote:3rihuodw]

I seem to remember a member of the CSDF that was opposed to the Judiciary Act but was put down by the other CSDF members and the CDS as a whole. Nobody listened to her and now the bill is being presented for payment. As they say, “I told you so!”
I do not see the current requirement as a method of appointing fair Judges just Judges that are real life lawyers.

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="Ranma Tardis":1j2rtkf6]I seem to remember a member of the CSDF that was opposed to the Judiciary Act but was put down by the other CSDF members and the CDS as a whole. Nobody listened to her and now the bill is being presented for payment. As they say, “I told you so!”
I do not see the current requirement as a method of appointing fair Judges just Judges that are real life lawyers.[/quote:1j2rtkf6]Ranma, on what basis do you say that you (I assume you're talking about yourself) were 'put down' by other members of the CSDF and that you were not listened to? I think the transcripts of our meetings, published on the relevant section of the forums, do not support that accusation.

[Ranma Tardis]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":3vtxfda1][quote="Ranma Tardis":3vtxfda1]I seem to remember a member of the CSDF that was opposed to the Judiciary Act but was put down by the other CSDF members and the CDS as a whole. Nobody listened to her and now the bill is being presented for payment. As they say, “I told you so!”
I do not see the current requirement as a method of appointing fair Judges just Judges that are real life lawyers.[/quote:3vtxfda1]Ranma, on what basis do you say that you (I assume you're talking about yourself) were 'put down' by other members of the CSDF and that you were not listened to? I think the transcripts of our meetings, published on the relevant section of the forums, do not support that accusation.[/quote:3vtxfda1]

It was not just the CSDF that insisted I was wrong but the other faction as well. Remember the Judiciary act was passed by a 100% vote of the RA. Thus it is not a "finger pointing" at the CSDF but one of almost the entire community. My disagreements with the CSDF lead directly to my deputure. I would still be "non aligned" but the DPU changed its position enough to allow me to rejoin.
It is not really a matter of being "put down" but having a fundamental disagrement and you can view it any way you wish. It got so bad, I disagreed with almost the entire platform and for the sake of harmony I left. I had thought of remaining "non aligned" but things change. Oh I thought of joining that new party but am "pragmatic" and not a simpleton.

[Pelanor Eldrich]

My personal feeling is that the Judiciary should under the SC branch. While there is independence of Judiciary from the RA and its parent the SC, the Court of Scientific Council is the final arbiter on constitutional appeal. The SC retains a valuable role in the supreme court sense, as well as being the tribal elders with respect to the morality, vision and founding philosophy of the CDS. The spirit of Article III, section 8 should be retained.

The PJSP was a compromise reached so that Judges were appointed in a manner mostly uninfluenced by the RA once the Judiciary was fully staffed.

As a RA member with a case ready to file, I believe that we do not want undue partisan bribery, coercion or influence affecting our judges. The judiciary must not be seen as corrupt. By the same token they do not live in a bubble and I concur with my American friends that we do not want them forming substantive law, i.e. "legislating from the bench".

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":33pz8oup]My personal feeling is that the Judiciary should under the SC branch. While there is independence of Judiciary from the RA and its parent the SC, the Court of Scientific Council is the final arbiter on constitutional appeal. The SC retains a valuable role in the supreme court sense, as well as being the tribal elders with respect to the morality, vision and founding philosophy of the CDS. The spirit of Article III, section 8 should be retained.[/quote:33pz8oup]

Indeed - with our present arrangement, we have a situation that is in many respects more advantageous than many real-life judicial systems: one body administers the day-to-day running of the judiciary according to the constitution, the other body cannot interfere with the day-to-day running of the judiciary, but is responsible for ensuring that the body that is responsible for the day-to-day running of the judiciary abides by the rules set down in the constitution. The second body does not get excessive power by virtue of regulating itself in the running of the ordinary judicial affairs (which could lead to it interpreting the constitution to run the judiciary as it liked), but the former body is also made to comply with constitutional rules. Our system is probably one of the most effective that one could design in preventing judicial activism from undermining the legitimate power of the elected legislature, whilst at the same time retaining real judicial independence. Many first-life nations have much to learn from this model.