[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":jey42kks]No, it is not rhetoric. It is a question that I pointedly asked in order for you to answer it. If you cannot answer it, how can your argument have any weight?[/quote:jey42kks]
Yet more rhetoric. How revealing it is that you write "in order for me to answer it" and not "in order to understand better your point of view."
I could respond but it is rather pointless since it has become painstakingly obvious over time that you do not ask in order to achieve understanding but rather to try and frame my discourse sophistically as being without merit.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":jey42kks]How is a survey of a small minority of the population of the CDS clear on anything?[/quote:jey42kks]
You consider 13 out of 61 people to be a "small minority"? First of all you cannot know if it is a minority since you do not know the points of view held by those that have not yet answered the survey.
Second, as regards your choice of the adjective "small" to characterise a population of 13 out of 61 I am wondering if it might be because of a lack of ability to calculate percentages or if perhaps your assessment of what it takes to not be "small" is influenced in a sophistic manner by your interest in trivialising any opposition to your approach. Just in case it stems from the former let me inform you that 13 out of 61 is in fact more than 20% of the population. Even if the latest figure is 65 it remains 20% of the population - a figure significantly larger than what most public opinion polls save referendums and elections base themselves upon. In fact, the number 13 corresponds to the current record of the number of users simultaneously active in the Neufreistadt forums.
There. I've now spent 5 minutes accommodating your need to have your rhetorical question answered. Does this bring the two of us closer to any kind of common understanding? No? Well, I didn't think so either .. that is why I did not bother responding in the first place. In fact, it is quite likely that the only purpose I have served by taking the time to answer is to have given you another opportunity to break my answer up into small bits and pieces and highlight each part of which that you consider suitably contestable in an untiring attempt at trying to portray my arguments as being without merit.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":jey42kks]I [i:jey42kks]have[/i:jey42kks] compromised, [i:jey42kks]lots of times[/i:jey42kks]. The current Judiciary Act is awash with compromises.[/quote:jey42kks]
I should be quite interested to know of any examples of you reaching for a compromise without having the pressure of (a) a political majority against you or (b) being at the risk of accusations of negligence and thus of impeachment.
[quote:jey42kks]Furthermore, as I have repeatedly stated, I am willing to compromise some [i:jey42kks]more[/i:jey42kks]: as I have written over and over and over again, if there are no applicants by this Friday, I will review the qualificaiton procedures.[/quote:jey42kks]
I find it rather strange that you describe your possible clash with reality as you making a compromise with people of opposing observation. The fact is that the RA and the PJSP have decided they want at least three judges appointed so it seems to me that you have not really reached very far in order to enable this compromise. "Burning platform" seems to me a more accurate description of your motivation to accept the necessity of reviewing the qualification procedure.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":jey42kks]I have made the Special Commissioners proposal. It is others who are unwilling to see these as compromises, and are pressing for what it seems that they really wanted all along, come what may.[/quote:jey42kks]
This does not count as a compromise either since it is quite clear that you did not offer this up before it was evident that the RA would be taking steps to remedy the deadlock of the judiciary. It is hard to see your hurried proposal as anything but an attempt at 'damage control'.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":jey42kks]In law, there are some cases in which compromise is the right answer, but that is not all cases. Consider the innocent man wrongly accused - what would a compromise involve there? Having him plead guilty to a lesser offence of which he is equally innocent? Justice does not always entail compromise.[/quote:jey42kks]
So you consider yourself to be 'the innocent man wrongly accused'?
[quote:jey42kks]Firstly, I am not incapable of compromise, as the numerous compromises that I have already made, and am yet willing to make, demonstrate.[/quote ]
Sorry but as I have repeatedly stated giving up some of one's position when the alternative is having someone else do it for you is not a compromise. It is damage control.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":jey42kks]Secondly, the Scientific Counci has no such power.[/quote:jey42kks]
I can fully understand if you are having difficulty navigating the clauses of the judiciary act. It is after all quite a monolithic document. However, let me guide you along:
According to the judiciary act's amendment of the Constitution's Article III Section 8 (Powers of the Scientific Council):
[quote="The Constitution":jey42kks]3. The Scientific Council may vote by simple majority: –
(a) to commence impeachment proceedings against the Chair of the Judiciary Commission or any Judge of Common Jurisdiction (including the Chief Judge of Common Jurisdiction) before the Court of Scientific Council, on any of the grounds on which the Chief Judge of Common Jurisdiction may do so; and[/quote:jey42kks]
[quote:jey42kks]The only reason why you can use the argument of 'judicial independence' as a strawman to resist any proposed alterations to the implementation of the judiciary act with which you do not agree (all but one) is because you have managed to put yourself in a position where you are the only one entitled to speak on behalf of the judiciary.[/quote:jey42kks]
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":jey42kks]Put myself in such a position?[/quote:jey42kks]
Yes - "managing to put oneself in a position" is an expression that can be used to describe a situation where the sequence of acts by a person has unintentionally landed said person in circumstances that he may not have envisioned nor desired. Consider for example the question "How did you manage to put yourself in that position?" as said by the mother untangling the child who unintentionally put his head through the right sleeve of the sweater instead of as intended through the collar.
[quote:jey42kks]How many judges did [i:jey42kks]you[/i:jey42kks] qualify, right after the Act was passed?[/quote:jey42kks]
Sadly only one. I would have been more than willing to qualify more but there was only one candidate presented to me since the other applicant was needed for an equally important position.
[quote:jey42kks]To what lengths did [i:jey42kks]you[/i:jey42kks] go to find other judges? I, meanwhile, have spent [i:jey42kks]hours[/i:jey42kks] trying to find more and more people interested in being judges, and setting up procedures by which they should be qualified.[/quote:jey42kks]
I am not particularly keen on encouraging a faction of people from outside our community to apply for citizenship in order to become judges since I am of the opinion that our judiciary must necessarily build upon the trust and goodwill of our community. I have encouraged any citizen who confided in me that he/she considered applying to become a judge. I find it hard to see why you should be considered a saint for having laboured to set up procedures by which they should be qualified. It is quite obvious that you have treated this task as your exclusive privilege despite numerous offers from our community to help you achieve the right balance in your assessment.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":jey42kks] The most charitable possible interpretation of what you have written above is that it is a grossly unfair and thoroughly ill-conceived point.[/quote:jey42kks]
I see. While you are engaged in the business of making charitable interpretations could you answer me how to interpret the following characterisations: "... at the very least hugely ignorant of X", "... for the most part at least, your ability to reason is good", "Your conduct is utterly deplorable, and wholly unbecoming of anybody who holds public office."?
Once you have given me an answer perhaps we can start discussing what is a fair characterisation.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":jey42kks][quote="Diderot Mirabeau":jey42kks]If you had managed to recruit other judges they might well have disagreed with you on the same points and suddenly this would no longer be a question of judicial independence - without changing a single word in the argument.[/quote:jey42kks]
That is not the point: the point is that you are criticising me [i:jey42kks]because[/i:jey42kks] I have not given in to public pressure [i:jey42kks]merely because it is public pressure[/i:jey42kks].[/quote:jey42kks][/quote:jey42kks]
No that is not the point. The point is that other posters have at length explained to you time and time again the tenets of their arguments against your approach to an extent where it is completely out of the question to summarise fairly the thrust of their arguments. I support most of the criticism and saw no need to further reproduce it in this post, the intention of which it was to address my increasing doubts about your ability to engage in a compromise. You have not exactly managed to allay those doubts by way of your response.