[quote="michelmanen":3hrtd0v4]1. Our SC decides to entrust to a respected legal profesional the design of our Judiciary;[/quote:3hrtd0v4]I think that's a rather partial reading of events. As I understand Ash came to our community in order to develop a legal system and seek office as Chief Judge. I will agree that the RA, and others, could be criticised for entrusting too much power and control over the design of the judiciary to one individual. It's a mistake we should avoid in future.
[quote:3hrtd0v4]2. The matter is debated at length, over a period of weeks, and the JA is approved three times by the RA.[/quote:3hrtd0v4]Too quickly, and with insufficient scrutiny, in hindsight.
[quote:3hrtd0v4]3. A four-month process of hard work and public consultatons ensues.[/quote:3hrtd0v4]Actually, it was more of a massive ruckus as long-time citizens who had missed the debate on the Judiciary returned to find the Constitution had doubled in length and a new institution had been granted sweeping powers over their Second Lives and property. This was followed by the vocal complaints of some new citizens who thought the Judiciary Act was wholely misconceived. I disagreed with both groups at the time, I don't any longer.
[quote:3hrtd0v4]4. Realising that a fair and impartial judiciary will actually mean the application of the rule of law to all their actions and the limitation of their hitherto unchecked powers by a functioning legal system, a small group of individuals decides, in the name of some undefined and unclear community values, to violate the clear and established custom of the CDS not to hold RA meetings during the two weeks preceding an election, let alone pass critical legislation, by adopting a bill submitted less than 4 days beforehand, after virtually no public consultation and debate, on the basis of the voluminous comments made by less than 10 individuals on our forums.[/quote:3hrtd0v4]The notion that there has been insufficient debate on this issue is laughable. We've debated nothing else for months. And the RAs term of office has not ended yet.
[quote:3hrtd0v4]5. The very person who triggered the submission of this bill sits as a member of the only institution capable of vetoing such legislation for unconstitutionality.[/quote:3hrtd0v4]Are you referring to me? Presumably you think I should have kept my concerns about the judiciary to myself and not acted on them? In any case I am only one member of the CSDF and our faction has only two out of five RA seats. Clearly the other members of our faction had similar worries. It was not only our faction reps on the RA but the two DPU reps who were present, who voted to repeal much of the Judiciary Act they had previously passed. Clearly they thought it was important enough to risk their seats in the RA by taking this step.
[quote:3hrtd0v4]6. No other appeal possibility exsists because the bill in question has destroyed the only independent institution capable of fairly and firmly weighing issues of democracy, constitutionality and the rule of law in our community besides the RA and SC, some of whose mebmers have worked together to achieve the very destruction of our judicial system.[/quote:3hrtd0v4]So the plan was to make the judiciary the final arbiter of these questions? That was the accusation made against the Judiciary by some of its opponents, I can't say that I wholely believed it. You appear to have confirmed their suspicions though. We have been saved in the nick of time then from a 'judicial coup'. Phew!
[quote:3hrtd0v4]7. Public officials make insensitive public statements in public media and other public officials admonish those of our citizens who dare object;[/quote:3hrtd0v4]This is Aliasi's comment about Goreans? What was insensitive about her statement? Why shouldn't I (or anyone else) push back against attempts to censor people's views?
[quote:3hrtd0v4]8. The only party whose core values are absolute inclusion, deep diversity, the power of the best argument, and multi-level citizenship and who genuinly appeals to the wider citizenry other than the less tthan 10 vocal individuals who currently run the CDS and post volumes of notes on our forum is dragged before the SC in order to be declared illegal and forcefully disbanded and forbidden from participating in supposedly free and fair elections because of their very polices of absolute inclusion, deep diversity, the power of the best argument, and multi-level citizenship and in the name of the self-same undefined and unclear community values.[/quote:3hrtd0v4]The [b:3hrtd0v4]only[/b:3hrtd0v4] party? That's a rather big claim. On the issue of CARE's constitutionality, I will be arguing that you are within your rights to have members who are not CDS citizens provided they do not take decisions on the party platform for elections or select candidates for the RA. We have a similar situation in the CSDF. We have open enrollment and so some avatars from outside the CDS have joined because they broadly share our political philosophy, we hope they will become members of the CDS. But they can only be 'supporters' according to our Charter. I see no conflict between this situation and the Constitution.
[quote:3hrtd0v4]9. And so, the circle closes. The very few individuals who today wield power in the RA and SC have worked together to...[/quote:3hrtd0v4]No, the RA has taken a decision it is perfectly entitled to do. The SC has yet to consider the Constitutional Amendment and Bill.
[quote:3hrtd0v4]I call this a Kafkaesque story of Orwellian proportions where Big Brother is watching us all and some citizens are clearly more equal than others.[/quote:3hrtd0v4]I call this a one-sided distortion of the facts intended to shore up CARE's vote in the elections.