[b:3g2l6lf4]To a Simpler Judiciary, or "Rethinking the Great Compromise"[/b:3g2l6lf4]
I have been giving a great deal of thought to our various judicial debates in recent days, and have been re-thinking the “Great Compromise†(as Ashcroft describes it). I’ve spent a fair amount of time discussing matters with my fellow citizens, including DPU and CSDF members, the “Simpletonsâ€, and the factionless. I have concluded that in the name of “judicial independence†we have created a system of “qualifying†judges that the citizenry does not respect, that strong potential candidates for judgeships won’t accept, and that so far has not identified a single judicial candidate. Soon to come will also be a massive “Code of Procedures†that will attempt to anticipate every possible set of circumstances. We are heading for a system that only lawyers can manage and only a very few will appreciate.
I welcome the sentiment that we should test the waters by conducting a referendum of the citizens, but in our representative democracy it is the RA that must make the tough decisions. Put another way, it was the RA that got us into this, and now it is the RA’s responsibility to find a way out. I will therefore be submitting legislation to:
1. Delete the [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 7:3g2l6lf4]Judiciary Act’s[/url:3g2l6lf4] lengthy Article VII (Judiciary) from the Constitution and replace it with the following 101 words: “There shall be a judiciary consisting of three or more Judges as the Representative Assembly shall determine from time to time are required. Judges shall be nominated by majority vote of the Scientific Council and appointed by a two-thirds vote of the Representative Assembly. Judges shall serve a term of one calendar year from appointment, and may be reappointed for subsequent terms. Judges may be impeached and removed from office upon a two-thirds vote of the Scientific Council. The Judiciary Commission and the positions of Chief Judge, Chair of the Judiciary Commission, and the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel are hereby abolished.â€;
2. Return the power of appointment of Judges to the SC with confirmation by the RA (as was done with the appointment of Ashcroft as our initial judge);
3. Eliminate lifetime tenure of judges, setting judicial terms as equivalent to two legislative terms (thereby preserving a measure of "judicial independence" by isolating judges from electoral politics), allowing for re-appointment (and impeachment by two-thirds of the SC), and retaining Ashcroft as the first of these judges;
4. Create up to 5 judgeships (because we need 1 trial judge, 3 for an appeal, and an odd number to break any deadlocks when the judges act collectively);
5. Require the assignment of cases by random draw to one judge, and a panel of three judges for purposes of any appeal; and
6. Create the position of “Administrative Judgeâ€, to be selected by and among the judges to serve for each legislative term.
I am posting the proposed Constitutional Amendment and Act on the Legislative Discussion forum.
Finally, a word about the debate and what I hope will become a more civil discourse. The [i:3g2l6lf4]ad hominem[/i:3g2l6lf4] attacks in these fora and elsewhere of late have been most unfortunate. Many citizens have concluded that the new judicial system is and will be unworkable, and they are people of good will. Similarly, Ashcroft is also a person of good will and great character who I hope will continue to serve in a judicial capacity in my proposed revision of the system, and who has devoted countless hours to this project. I happen to believe that Ashcroft has over-thought and over-designed the judicial system, but I have great respect for the work that he has done to get us to this point. With some significant changes, we will have a judicial system which will have the respect of all of our citizens, will be a model for the Metaverse, and of which we can all be justifiably proud.