New judicial thread: Fear of Krytocracy

Forum to discuss issues pertaining to the organisation and operations of the judiciary.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
Publius Crabgrass
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:12 pm

New judicial thread: Fear of Krytocracy

Post by Publius Crabgrass »

Now that the length of "Public consultation: judicial qualification requirements" thread has reached a new record, I have a couple of observations:

(1) The thread started with Ashcroft seeking input on the proposed "judicial qualification requirements". All of that input has been negative, yet no changes have been made.

(2) Beathan has made a useful suggestion (echoing Justice?), that prospective judges could be judged on their forum contributions. Indeed, that (plus legislative drafting skills) seems to be the basis on which Ashcroft was chosen as a judge.

(3) The initial steps towards implementation of the judiciary ought to concern the legislature. I speak not just of the " judicial qualification requirements" but of the apparently forthcoming mammoth code of procedures.

(4) A few weeks ago, seeing the direction that this train wreck was heading, I proposed a simple resolution for the RA:

[quote="Resolution (in part)":3llclux4]Whereas, having further considered the implementation of a judiciary,

IT IS THE SENSE OF THE R.A. THAT:

1) The SC should qualify and RA should appoint at least three (two additional) judges.

2) There should be at least three Judges to constitute the Board of the Judiciary; once fully constituted the Board should elect one of their number to serve as Chief Judge.

3) The fully-constituted Board (of at least three members) should propose the adoption of rules (procedures, ethics, judicial qualifications, etc.) subject to a period of public comment, and which may be rejected or amended by the RA prior to final adoption.

4) All funds collected by judiciary must go into the CDS treasury.

5) The RA will establish (with advice of the judiciary) a schedule of court costs and a budget[/quote:3llclux4]

I think it is time to bring this up again.

(5) My final point: I recently came across the word[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krytocracy:3llclux4]krytocracy[/url:3llclux4] ("a government ruled by judges), the fear of which may be fueling our debates. Does this lead to a neoligism (new word), krytocraphobia?

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

This is a good proposal, except I think that we should have at least four, not three, judges. Appeals should be heard by a panel of three judges not including the trial judge.

I would also propose that members of the S.C. serve as temporary judges in the event there are fewer than four judges. The Dean can appoint S.C. members to serve as necessary.

Beathan

Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”