The New Judiciary

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

Moderator: SC Moderators

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

The New Judiciary

Post by michelmanen »

It is critical that we have a professional and dedicated Chief Justice during the months ahead.

Since our (former) Chief Justice has clearly expressed his intention to leave the CDS, and since one of the remaining two qualified judge ccandidates has resigned, I suggest the RA makes it its first order of business to appoint Oni Jiutai, the remaining qualified candidate, Chief Justice should he accept to serve, of course...

Whilst I would very much regret losing Oni as a CARE member (as I understand he would resign his membership once confirmed as a judge), I think he is exactly the right person for the job at a critical time for our community. With his assistance as Chief Justice, I think this RA will be able to lay down the entire framework for CDS' future juridico-political system.

Let us not waste this opportunity and the valuable human capital available to us right now...

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

Re: The New Judiciary

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="michelmanen":2e1i846f]It is critical that we have a professional and dedicated Chief Justice during the months ahead. [/quote:2e1i846f]

What is the status of the judiciary as of now? Does it still exist, and have a Chief Judge, under current law?

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

Post by michelmanen »

We still have a Judiciary in theory. In practice, there's little left of it. Thats is why having a professional Chief Justice is critical.

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

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

[quote="michelmanen":3euy71di]We still have a Judiciary in theory. In practice, there's little left of it. Thats is why having a professional Chief Justice is critical.[/quote:3euy71di]
Actually, the constitutional amendment in question provides that the SC shall act as the judiciary. Are you suggesting that Oni be invited to membership in the SC, or that the position of Chief Judge be reinstituted, or both?

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

Post by michelmanen »

Well, CARE campaigned on a fair, stable and professional judiciary, and the SC can only be a temporary stop-gap measure for that.

I suggest Oni becomes new Chief Justice only (!), and we actually put in place a fair, stable and professional judiciary we can all agree on.

Oni Jiutai
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Oni Jiutai »

Flattering though Michel's suggestion is, I'm with the majority. There isn't a judicial branch for anyone to be 'Chief' of at the moment. And while I like the idea of a purely ceremonial role (much less work) it might quickly become confusing.

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

Post by michelmanen »

Of course there isn't a Judiciary. We need a Chief Justice to work with the RA and the CDS population to develop one so that we avoid the debacle of the last RA. So, rather than giving the new Chief Justice all the work (as was done before) or have no input from a professonal until the RA does all the work on its own (an idea that is just as bad- and I for one do not wish to see this RA prove how bad this idea is in the same way the last RA showed how bad the "total delegation" idea was) , what I suggest is to adopt a collaborative approach, where all government branches (Judiciary included) work together and with all CDS citizens to develop a viable, legitimate. fair, stable and professional judiciary. Since all other government branches have a head except the judiciary, I concluded that we need a Chief Justice as soon as possible to get the ball rolling. His primary short-term role would not be that of "heading" a non-existent branch, but to work with all other branches of government to actually develop it in the first place and make it acceptable to the community at large. There is nothing "ceremonial about this"; in fact, itd a fascinating challenge to take on :)

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

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

I think it's bad enough that we tied up a large part of the last RAs time with the whole Judiciary debate. Time to put the idea on ice for a while in my opinion before we bore everyone to death.

A suitable starting point, after we've had time to reflect on all that is past, would be:

[i:2aqc95ro][b:2aqc95ro]"Do we need a judicial system at all? And, if so, what do we need it for?"[/b:2aqc95ro][/i:2aqc95ro]

I think it's better to begin with principles rather than institutions. (Might help to learn the lessons from our recent past before we set off on the same path, eh?)

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

Post by Beathan »

The only truly cogent objection to the judicial role of the SC prior to passage of the JA (criticism made in light of the Ulrika trial) was that it was sloppy and without form because of a lack of procedures. With the Soothsayer rules, we have fixed that problem -- or at least provided a foundation for a fix of that problem.

Further, we have streamlined and clarified the process by creating a role of individual trial judges -- drawn from the SC -- so that trials are not conducted by committee.

I think that we have a fair and workable system (if not a "professional" one). I don't see the need for Michels proposal. Let's work with what we have. Where we find problems, let's find specific fixes to those problems. If systemic problems are discovered, then (and only then) we can and should talk about systemic changes (such as the creation of a new professional judiciary).

That said, I agree that CARE campaigned on the idea of a professionalized judiciary and on the restoration of the Judiciary Act , or something very like it. This position was clearly articulated by CARE and MM during the campaign. The outcome of the election indicates that the CDS community has clearly repudiated these ideas and this project. Let's move on with the system currently in place -- and put in place by the DPU and CSDF (the parties which clearly won the election -- despite the campaigning of CARE on the judiciary issues).

The people have decided. It's time for CARE to live up to its slogan -- "let the people decide."

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

It seems like I am in agreement with the majority here. If there is one thing we learned from the last round of debate on the Judiciary it must be that we should not entrust a single person with the development of our Judiciary System. Much better it is if we start out simple and develop the system collectively as we gain experience. I'd like to see the SC start handling some cases first and build on the experience from this process to create a gradually improving system.

I will take the initiative to get the SC to meet as soon as possible to discuss how to move forward in these matters.

"With no prejudice" to what I have written above I do agree with you Michel that it would be very valuable to have Oni participate in this process as much as he is able and willing to. I hope that this can be realised without the need for formal titles and stuff.

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

Post by michelmanen »

CARE campaigned openly and strongly on, among other things, a fair, stable and professional judiciary; I was elected on this platform and I intend to do my outmost to promote it.

While I am prepared to discuss the nature, purpose, structure and implementation of the judiciary, I am not willing to see it abolished as an independent branch of government and return to the [i:2fo4q4x3]status quo ante[/i:2fo4q4x3].

The SC is not equipped to handle our regular judicial case-load, and should not be asked to do so.

Although titles per se are not important, we do have a Leader of the RA; a Dean of the SC; a Guildmeister; and therefore I see nothing above the top to have a Chief Justice.

I do not intend to make this a lythmus test for my cooperation on other issues; but I see no prospect of my agreeing to any changes to our system of govenance (constitutional, legislative, electoral) without progress on the judiciary issue.

Simply put, I do not believe we can have a democratic and fair community without an independent and professional judiciary; if that puts me in a minority of one for now in the RA; so be it.

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

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

I hope you'll excuse my tongue-in-cheek reply of asking you if you shouldn't be consulting extensively with your CARE constituency before taking any firm stance on what a 'fair and professional judiciary' actually constitutes? :-)

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

Post by michelmanen »

I did not take a stand on what a fair, stable and professional judiciary includes; as I said, that is open to discussion and debate. But the need for one as an independent and impartial branch of our government isn't -unless CARE Faction members specifically and unequivocally decide otherwise.

Until and unless this happens, I think I am entitled to promote a position CARE campaigned on.

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

Post by Beathan »

So -- Michel --

Now that the people have decided against CARE's agenda, you will continue to maintain that agenda despite that disagreement? That might 'keep faith" with your message, but it probably does not keep true faith with CARE's supporters or with the CDS community. On this particular issue (your support for a separate and insular judiciary drawn from the RL legal profession), such stubbornness will probably make CARE irrelevant. The four other RA members campaigned, and won, on agendas of incremental change, using traditional institutions, taking the special characteristics of our small, but talented, community seriously, and expressing a commitment to the effort find a system that fits SL, rather than one imported from RL into SL regardless of fit.

The election clearly demonstrated that a majority of our community opposes CARE's agenda. Almost twice as many people voted against CARE (put CARE 4th) than voted for CARE (even putting CARE 3rd). This indicates that CARE should revisit and change its agenda. It certainly should not try to force through this agenda in the face of this opposition.

The other three parties have a clear mandate to oppose CARE's agenda. CARE has no clear mandate to support it. The choice is CARE's. CARE can either change to fit the expressed will of the voters, or can refuse to change and become irrelevant. (Given CARE's relatively vacuous platform, it actually has great freedom to redefine itself -- even on the judicial issue.)

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 comments. Constructive criticism is always welcome.

Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”