[quote="Justice Soothsayer":3byefntx]I happen to believe that Ashcroft has over-thought and over-designed the judicial system[/quote:3byefntx]
What does "over-thought" and "over designed" mean? What possible [i:3byefntx]dis[/i:3byefntx]advantage of too much thought can there be except in time and effort to the thinker? What possible [i:3byefntx]dis[/i:3byefntx]advantage can too much design be except in time and effort to the designer?
[quote:3byefntx]but I have great respect for the work that he has done to get us to this point.[/quote:3byefntx]
I do not condier accepting a proposal on which much time has been spent, then, after it is passed, and just before it is implimented, because of a controversy over [i:3byefntx]qualification requirements[/i:3byefntx], seeking to demolish it, and with it the even greater amount of work that has been spent on procedures, in the least respectful.
[quote:3byefntx] 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.[/quote:3byefntx]
It will [i:3byefntx]not[/i:3byefntx] have the respect of all our citizens: it will certainly not have my respect, nor the respect of those who value judicial independence, nor the respect of those who believe that the one thing that is more important than anything else in a virtual world legal system is legal certainty, and the one area in which legal certainty is more important than any other is legal procedure.
[quote:3byefntx]shcroft 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.[/quote:3byefntx]
The product of most of which you want recklessly to throw away before it has even been tested. Do you really expect a person who has given so much of his free time to creating something so carefully and dilligently is going to stay around to do more work if his existing work is thrown away, not because it has truly been tested and failed, but because those who accepted it have simply changed their minds not two months after the original proposal was first accepted? I could quite easily have written the codes of procedure whilst the Judiciary Act was being debated, but I did not, knowing that (1) it would be a great deal of work; and (2) there was a possibility that they would not be needed, because the Act might not be passed. Once the Act was passed, I started work on them because I thought that I could be secure in the knowledge that they would at least be tested, even if the legislature ended up modifying them. Since then, I have spent literally [i:3byefntx]tens[/i:3byefntx] of hours drafting the code because I realise that a thorough code is the only way to avoid the sort of disarray and injustice that comes when people have conflicting expectations about how things will be handled. If all that work is thrown away, there is no way that I (or anybody else sane) will ever be able to trust that any such work done in the future will ever be put to use, rather than discarded in the clamour of incessant revision of the already decided.