[quote="Jon Seattle":qw9ccysv]1. The current Judiciary Act should be suspended. (Not abolished, or radically revised all in one day as Justice would have us do.) Keeping it is force is keeping us from working out a solution that makes sense for our community.[/quote:qw9ccysv]
Why does keeping it in force have any such effect? Keeping it in force enables us to test it to see whether it works, whilst we decide whether it is really as bad as some people seem to think that it is. In any event, suspending (rather than repealing) parts of the constitution is unconstutional, and not something that the RA has the power to do. Whilst any text remains part of the constitution, everybody, including the RA, is fully bound by it. Removing text is called "repealing". Furthermore, suspending the operation of an entire judicial system, without immediately replacing it, is unlawful, since it does not provide an effective judicial system, as mandated by the UNHDR. That is again something that the RA does not have the power to do.
[quote:qw9ccysv]2. The proponents of the various judicial proposals (Ashcroft, Beathan, Justice) should work together with interested citizens to create some proposal with true public understanding and support. This is important as what is happening now is that the parties are bashing it out on these forums. [/quote:qw9ccysv]
I already have spent an enormous amout of time debating with proponents of various different ideas about how the judicary should work before we came to the agreement that we reached back in October. If all that work is going to be disregarded, and everybody forced to start all over again, then I will have no confidence that any solution reached by this subsequent agreement will not surcumb to the same fate, and will have no incentive to participate in it. That will apply to all of the other parties, too, except those who did not participate the first time around. There is a limit to how much of a person's time will be wasted, and how much of a person's work disrespected and thrown away without being tried, that a person will take and still be willing to do more.
[quote:qw9ccysv]There are quite a few studies now that show that web-based forums are notoriously bad ways of working our differences. Conflict tends to escalate and discussions work towards divergence of views and not consensus.
- There should meetings in-world of a commission open to all people who are interested in establishing a judiciary. This group should work on a common proposal and then bring it to the RA. [/quote:qw9ccysv]
I am not interested in establishing another judiciary. I am interested in working with the judiciary that we have already established. I am not alone in that. Any such commission would deliberately marginalise such people in favour of those who never liked the idea in the first place and will seize any excuse to do away with what they agreed at the time for good reason.
[quote:qw9ccysv]The current Judicial Act should remain suspended until this work is finished. If it takes a long time, well, so be it. This is not something we want to rush in to. The old system (run by the SC) will work until then.[/quote:qw9ccysv]
As explained, this would be unconstitutional: the RA has no power to do this.
[quote:qw9ccysv]We have three vastly different competing proposals and lots and lots of heated debate. Having a fractious bunch running the judicial system does not inspire public confidence.[/quote:qw9ccysv]
Neither does unconstitutionally and unlawfully suspending a system before it has even started to operate, despite being ready to operate, and denying citizens justice indefinitely.
[quote:qw9ccysv]I (and I think many other citizens) object to the CDS government, the RA, and public discourse being hijacked for months to talk about the judiciary to the exclusion of all other concerns.[/quote:qw9ccysv]
So do I. I thought that that would all have finished in October when the Judiciary Act was finally passed. All that I want to do is get on with judging cases in our present system, the system on which I have invested so much of my time and effort over the last half a year, and educating people in how it works. The only way to stop public discourse from being so hijacked is to refuse to entertain any suggestion that the system be changed until it has had enough time to be tested thoroughly. What you propose will do the opposite: ensure that the judiciary remains unresolved for an indefinite period of time. Some people, having spent half a year working on the project, and half a year battling hard to defend important ideals from those who would have an unworkably oversimplified system, or those who would have the judiciary under the thumb of politicians, both to the infinite detriment of justice, to secure the prize of living in a community in which true justice and the rule of law prevails, being a pioneer in SecondLife, being able to say to the world, "this is what I have had a hand in creating - look how well it is working", and, above all, having the fascinating task of judging cases. I never came to the CDS because I enjoyed having to battle with people about the future of the judiciary: I came here because I wanted to bring a proper judicial system to a virtual world, with all the benefits for the inhabitants thereof that I have outlined many times before, and be a judge in that system.