The sad and simple fact is that no product or institution can be defended or justified merely on the ground that it took a lot of work to create. If the product of the effort is bad, or undesirable, (and the JA fits this description) then it should be abandoned without regard to the amount of effort that went into it.
In economics, the effort it takes to create something are called "sunk costs." Decisions should be made based on prospective costs and benefits. A thing should be maintained only if it is likely to produce real future benefits to justify its apparent future costs. The Judiciary Act failed this test. The Judiciary Act failed this test not because the project was a bad one -- or was in any way unsound -- but because of the effects of the unilateral choices Ashcroft made when developing and implementing his Act. These choices were not choices that fit this community well.
The problem with the project -- and the thing we should learn from its failure -- is that [i:2yy4nwek] carte blanche[/i:2yy4nwek] (or blank check) projects of this kind do not work well in democracies. We should develop our ideas and institutions collectively, as a community. We should not give a single person the power and duty to create an institution for later presentation to the rest of us when it was finished.
This latter way of doing things is called "dictatorship". This claim might seem overly loaded, but it is actually fair. On the Roman model, a "dictator" was a single person given [i:2yy4nwek] carte blanche [/i:2yy4nwek] powers for a particular purpose and for a limited time. These limitations worked well until the dictatorship of Sulla, who proved that having the institution of "dictatorship" is inherently dangerous because the institution has a natural tendency to defy its limits or to seek an unlimited mandate. (Sulla, like Hugo Chavez, was made a dictator for the purpose of "restructuring the laws and institutions of the state." I think that Venezuela's experience in the next few years will tend to confirm the historical evidence that such empowerment of an individual is a bad idea.)
In this case, it is fair to say that we made Ashcroft "Dictator for the purpose of creating and implementing a judiciary." This was a fundamentally mistaken process to follow in creating an institution of the state (a judiciary) which we all agree we want, but which will govern and restrict our actions and liberties. (I note that CARE does not appear to have learned this lesson -- as Michel's recent "let's just appoint someone else -- say Oni -- to be dictator instead of Ashcroft" proposal shows.) Rather, the RA, with consultation with the citizenry, should work to develop a new judiciary or (as I prefer) refine and perfect the existing judiciary (the SC).
This is not to say that we should not thank people who perform great work on our behalf, even if that work fails to produce anything we can accept or use. However, we did thank Ashcroft, repeatedly and sincerely, for his work -- while also telling him why we cannot use the product of that work. This thanks without submission was not acceptable to Ashcroft.
To Ashcroft, the only sincere form of thanks would be full, unquestioning and obedient acceptance of the Judiciary Act as he presented it to us. This "thanks by submission" rather than "thanks by recognition" is not acceptable to most of us, and is not compatible with the ideals and principles of a democracy. If Ash feels pique as a result, and if he has the pettiness to strike at us out of that misplaced pique, I consider his actions to be a full and further indictment of his character -- an indictment that justifies (even if it were not justified already) our decision to refuse to follow the Ashcroftian road.
Beathan
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.