Proposed temporal residency requirements for judges

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

Moderator: SC Moderators

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Application for judgeship

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

Was it my asking you questions that amounted to "forcing you to withdraw your application with [..] unwarranted and perfidious aspersions upon your character and objectives, in order to ensure that our democratically legitimated legal system is still-born"?

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

"Fiat justitia , ruat coelum"

Post by michelmanen »

In any community, judges must not only be impartial and not motivateed by personal advantage, but also be seen to be so by the population at large, in order for that judge to be able to maintain his/ her public integrity, a lack of which would undermine the very legitimacy of the entire legal system of that community.

If your rhethorical questions, designed to achieve exactly such a purpose, have in any way persuaded my fellow citizens that my motivation in applying for a judgeship are anything other than an utterly disinterested attempt on my part to put my knowledge, skills, abilities and personal qualities in the service of our community at the very place where the need is currently greatest, I will be left with no choice but to withdraw my application - even if I am sadly aware that, in doing so, I am playing in the hands of those who have plotted all along to achieve exactly this aim: prevent, by any means necessary, for any citizen to be nominated to a judgeship position, in order to ensure that our democratically-legitimated legal system is still-born - and then proceed apace with their campaign to repeal the Judicature Act.

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Re: "Fiat justitia , ruat coelum"

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

Are you saying I am not allowed to ask you questions?

It is pretty simple questions I ask yet you refuse to answer them and leap instead towards accusing me of all sorts of ulterior motives.

Strange.

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Fiat justitia , ruat coelum

Post by michelmanen »

Senator Jospeh McCarthy also "only asked questions".

Good luck and good night!

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Fiat justitia , ruat coelum

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

Are you likening me to McCarthy?

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Fiat justitia , ruat coelum

Post by michelmanen »

"Honni soit qui mal y pense... "

By the way, as Site Administrator, could you please let me know if you are aware why my status has suddenly changed from two owls to one?

Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Re: Temporal residency requirements for judges

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="michelmanen":3mepfzfi]
3. Following a recent discussion with Beathan and Noble, where it became clear to me that the lack of applications for judgeship positions would be used as an excuse to justify the gutting (explicit or implicit) of our democratically-legitmated Judiciary Act, I decided to do everything in my power to oppose such pernicious purposes and force those attempting to mask their real aims behind the veil of "principled ethics" to reveal their true intentions. [/quote:3mepfzfi]

As a participant in that conversation, I have to say that I am really floored by your analysis. We talked about reasons to keep moving in the direction the Judiciary Act is taken us, as well as reasons to change course. I found you kind, accomodating, reasonable, and even humorous during the hours we chatted. During the conversation, and at the end of it, your main point was the importance of avoiding ad hominem attacks. Yet right out of the gate in this thread you've done nothing but that with the opponents of the judicial system. I mean, sure, I gave an angry response to an accusation of ignorance and evasiveness in another thread, but you've really gone out of your way to demonize those you disagree with. Where is the warning here, admins?

We are not looking for an excuse to change the direction of the judiciary. The lack of judicial applicants is a symptom, not a cause, of the problems which are becoming more evident by the day with a system that doesn't really seem to have been crafted for the benefit of the CDS.

Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Re: Temporal residency requirements for judges

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":scj966th]We are not looking for an excuse to change the direction of the judiciary. The lack of judicial applicants is a symptom, not a cause, of the problems which are becoming more evident by the day with a system that doesn't really seem to have been crafted for the benefit of the CDS.[/quote:scj966th]

Read the [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 9:scj966th]Codes of Procedures thread[/url:scj966th] for evidence of yet another symptom.

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Temporal residency requirements for judges

Post by michelmanen »

Gxeremio Dimsum wrote:

[quote:33v9tile]I found you kind, accomodating, reasonable, and even humorous during the hours we chatted. During the conversation, and at the end of it, your main point was the importance of avoiding ad hominem attacks.[/quote:33v9tile]

Thank you for the kind words. Did you give any thought as to what, according to you, might have made me change my attitude so drastically?

It is not the fact that others disagree with me that I have a problem with. In fact, based on your testimony, I am quite comfortable with open debate and disagreement.

But when private discussions are used against me for public purposes;

When ex post facto requirements are invented whole-sale in order to prevent by any means possible for our democratically-legitimated system to come into force;

When my name is explicitly mentioned to justify such procedural coups-de-main;

When I am specifically told that our legal system will never be given a chance to be put into practice;

When I am personally attacked exactly because I find it utterly beyond the pale to use procedural means in order to prevent our legal system from ever having the opportunity to prove itself;

When others join in and raise the level of personal attacks against me by putting in question my integrity and motivation in applying for a judgeship position;

When I am asked rhetorical questions designed to (en)frame me as a self-serving seeker of personal gratifications;

And when my forum status is demoted by the very same person proffering such insinuations because I have the temerity to stand up to him and expose him for what he truly is;

Do you then expect me to lie down and be meek and quiet and let others walk all over the very values, principles and ideals our community is based on?

Not me. Not now. Not ever.

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

Post by Beathan »

Michel Manen --

I wonder why you want to be a judge in community that you think, apparently, includes the Ayatollah, Lee Harvey Oswald, Sen McCarthy, and a host of people who disrepect you and believe that you lack the integrity for the office. I especially wonder why you want to be judge in a community you don't care to get to know.

I have tried to be courteous. I have not tried to cross boundaries of decency and privacy. I did not realize that you had imposed such invisible boundaries, and I believe that your responses to me and to the posts on this thread are overblown to the point of being irrational. I, for one, do not want you to be a judge, and I would refuse to argue a case in front of you. Ash has more decorum and a better temperament. If your goal was to elevate him by comparison, mission accomplished. If your goal was to endear yourself -- well, you can always make an alt and try again.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Post by michelmanen »

Thank you for your considered advice.

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

[quote="Beathan":2zqr2fes]I have tried to be courteous. I have not tried to cross boundaries of decency and privacy. I did not realize that you had imposed such invisible boundaries, and I believe that your responses to me and to the posts on this thread are overblown to the point of being irrational. I, for one, do not want you to be a judge, and I would refuse to argue a case in front of you. Ash has more decorum and a better temperament. If your goal was to elevate him by comparison, mission accomplished. If your goal was to endear yourself -- well, you can always make an alt and try again.[/quote:2zqr2fes]

I could post a number of examples of your less than courteous contributions to date....

Your attacks on those who disagree with you are becoming more unpleasant, I suggest you reread the Community Standards before posting again.

With reference to my earlier post, the reason I said that you're agenda was becoming clearer, is because Michel has exposed your willingness to achieve your objective by any means necessary and at whatever cost to the community you have so recently joined. This debate is ripping us apart. You've sneered at the moderate proposal the CSDF have put forward in another thread to establish a Commission to examine the whole matter and make recommendations to the RA. I've pointed out the [i:2zqr2fes]realpolitik[/i:2zqr2fes] in another thread - you need 4/5 votes to repeal the Judiciary Act and you don't seem to be doing anything to get the CSDF onside. Yet you persist in posting again and again on the same subject (175 posts and counting). So either you don't understand how to achieve your objectives through the democratic process, or you're engaged in pre-election campaigning to boost the vote for the Simplicity Party or you're just arguing for arguing's sake. Frankly, I'm getting bored of having to respond to the same old points ad infinitum when you don't respond to any of mine. I have better things to do with my time than this.

How do you see this matter being resolved? Do you seriously think the RA will cave in to the pressure you're applying this side of Christmas? Or are you pinning your hopes on the elections?

User avatar
Fernando Book
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Post by Fernando Book »

It's a bit strange to quote oneself but...

[quote="On November 19th Fernando Book":gnby42id]And finally, an observation. We are requiring 28 days of residence before a citizen can cast his vote, but we don't have any problem to give a lifetime job as judge to a resident who comes into the CDS to get the job. [/quote:gnby42id]

The date is the same of Michael's forum registration and four days before his first post, so it had nothing to do with him.

Yes, it's an [i:gnby42id]ex post facto[/i:gnby42id] requirement, but the analogy between the participation in the Legislature (by the way, we have prevented a new citizen to vote, but not to be a candidate to the RA, which is pretty contradictory) and the Judiciary (I insist, for a lifetime job) is not a temerary one.

And, in fact, the residence requirement stated in the Constitution doesn't create second class citizens, but, like most countries, makes a slight difference between residents and citizens.

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Residents and citizens

Post by michelmanen »

Thank you for pointing out the difference iRL between residents and citizens. As a matter of fact, iRL only residents can be denied the right to vote and to stand for public office; once a person becomes a citizen, all such restrictions are lifted. No citizen can be barred from voting or standing for office or applying for a public position (with various national caveats for criminals, etc..) without violating his constitutional and human rights.

CDS constitutional law, however, knows of no such distinctions. An individual becomes a citizens immediately upon purchasing land. With this come all rights and duties, privileges and responsibilities, attached to the notion of in-world citizenship.

A proposal of limting the rights of "new" citizens to those of residents iRL makes my point exactly: we would create second-class citizens in a community which knows of no such difference.

I am not arguing that we should refuse to consider voting on such a proposal after reasoned and open debate in the proper forum - the RA.

What I find beyond is the pale is the attempt of some, outside the regular legislative process, to use such an argument in order to attempt to block any citizen who does not meet an as-of-yet unspecified residency requirement from applying for a judgeship in order to ensure that our democratically legitimated Judicature Act cannot be implemented, and manipulate this purported failure as the trump argument in a populist campaign designed to stack the RA in order to repeal this very Judicature Act on which so much time and effort was spent before it has even had the opportunity to prove itself in practice, as authorised and required by the RA.

User avatar
Fernando Book
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Re: Residents and citizens

Post by Fernando Book »

[quote="michelmanen":1ke7u4yk]Thank you for pointing out the difference iRL between residents and citizens. As a matter of fact, iRL only residents can be denied the right to vote and to stand for public office; once a person becomes a citizen, all such restrictions are lifted. (...)

CDS constitutional law, however, knows of no such distinctions. An individual becomes a citizens immediately upon purchasing land. With this come all rights and duties, privileges and responsibilities, attached to the notion of in-world citizenship.
[/quote:1ke7u4yk]

It's not exactly that way. Amendment 13 to the Constitution, passed October 7th, reads:
[quote:1ke7u4yk]3. No citizen shall be eligible to vote in any election for public office in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators unless he or she has been a citizen for not less than 28 consecutive days immediately before any such election. [/quote:1ke7u4yk]

This is the departure point to have some kind of time of residence requirement before a citizen becomes a judge (and probably, Chancellor or member of the RA).

Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”