Michel wrote [quote:d5bw3ky2]The sustained personal attacks I have been subjected to because I dared apply for a judgeship position, while reprehensible, remain secondary to the critical point: the attempt to prevent by any by any means necessary the possibility that our democratically legitimated Judicature Act may prove its worth in practice.[/quote:d5bw3ky2]
I do not believe that I have attacked Michel for applying to be a judge. I could have. I am on record with my belief that the application is ethically flawed such that anyone who applies under it lacks the freedom from prejudice we should ethically require of our judges. I mentioned this in the notorious conversation I had with Michel -- but I have not mentioned it before on these forums.
What we have is a community having real, legitimate heartburn about the Judiciary Act. As the Act is implemented, it becomes clear that it is not what people thought it would be -- and not something they would have supported had they seen what was coming. (Granted, I was not here -- I am relying on conversations I have had with several citizens who were, who supported the act, and who have changed their minds.) This is the way democracies work. The greatest genius of a democracy is that it can change its mind.
Arrayed against this changing tide, we have three strident voices (each of whom is at least as loud and strident as I am in the other cause). First, we have Ash and Michel, who have vested interests in the system they want implemented and presume and aspire to a central role in that system. They are acting as aspiring office-holders have always acted -- interested in the system more for the status than the substantial gain to the community. It was not always so, and is not completely so even now, for Ash, but I see no track record to justify Michel's defense of the act as anything but a scramble for an office.
The third voice is Pat's -- and his is raised from legitimate concern that we not scrap four months hard labor (Ash, who took the laboring oar in this labor, shares this concern). I think that this concern will ultimately prove misguided (we are going in the wrong direction; the farther we go the harder it will be to get back), but I understand it as a natural reaction to the prospect of losing a lot of hard work. Out of respect for this community -- and for the efforts that were made to the Act before my arrival -- I have supported Justice's proposal, which charts a middle course between repeal and the status quo.
Pat argues [quote:d5bw3ky2]What is wrong with giving a new system some time to work? My main problem with those of you who wish to rip up the JA and start again is that you are trying to ensure that this system is stillborn. It is unfair and disrespectful to those of us who did participate in the development of the JA and who spent thousands of hours working on this. [/quote:d5bw3ky2]
This is a fundamentally mistaken basis for defense of a governmental system or policies. Once a program or policy is launch, it must stand on its own -- like a baby lizard. It is wrong to defend a policy or program that fails to justify itself by appealing to the work of the people who created it and claiming that rethinking it would disrespect them or their efforts. This kind of claim might make sense in literature or art, but not in public policy. The right of an institution or policy to survive is subject to a much harsher standard -- it must stand on its own, with all its warts, and make its own case for itself. If it fails to make that case, it must go.
I think Dimsum's post here -- and Diderot's in the Simplicity Party thread -- set forth the stark issues and problems with the Judiciary Act. Some of these problems cannot be solved without significant amendment to the Act. It may be that some of them cannot be solved short of repeal. However, these are problems -- even serious or fatal problems -- and they must be solved. If they are not, the RA is disrepecting the entire CDS community, and it should not be surprised when that community responds in the only way a democratic community can.
Beathan