Wow that is certainly a GR friendly version of events.

You and Kris questioned not only my objectivity and that of my fellow justices but also my trustworthiness to conduct court business. When the appeal didnt go the way you two wanted you asked to see the courts deliberations in the hope that you would find some damning evidence to support your perceptions of miscoduct or political motivations of the justices. To make matters worse you both then asked the courts justices to comfirm that we followed certain procedures when coming to our decision, this confirming that you have suspicion as to our ability to conduct a fair review of cases before the court. Its blow the belt and you both know it. One part of one decision doesnt go how you would like, amongst many that have been issued by the court during this last term, and suddenly the justices have lost trust and objectivity. Its insulting and I am having trouble figuring out if I am arguing with GR or Bels.

(07-31-2015, 03:29 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: It's not about motives. I don't think that and I haven't accused any justice of any nefarious activity in making those recommendations. The word "political" isn't a charge of corruption or abuse of power. It merely means that the court conducted itself like a legislature, entering itself into a policy debate when that debate is exclusive to the political branches.

The issue here is the fact that the court said what the Assembly *should* do to fix the contradiction within the charter, and not what the Assembly *could* do.

It's an important distinction to make, because even though this particular recommendation isn't highly disruptive of the political process, courts in the future can take this precedent of telling the Assembly what it *should* do and cause a lot of problems and chaos. Ultimately, making sure recommendations are policy neutral saves both the court and the Assembly in the long run.

Except of course the Court can't actually make the Assembly do anything. If the Court passed a decision telling the Assembly that the Charter must be rewritten in Swahili and everyone had to post messages while hopping on one leg, I don't think anyone would listen to it. No problems, no chaos. As for this particular case, you and I both read the ruling very differently. Maybe I'm wrong and the wording was unintentionally unclear and misleading. If that's the case then I'd hope we'd all agree that the reaction has been a trifle over the top. As pointed out earlier, if we wanted saints as justices we should be going to the Vatican. Alternatively, maybe you're wrong and it's fine (unsurprisingly the viewpoint I hold).

The core point in this, which as I said I want to see emerge in the debate of each Article, is actually what sort of Court does TSP want? In that respect, I would argue that your amendment doesn't actually change anything. The Court didn't in its opinion make a political recommendation. This amendment wouldn't change anything. Perhaps the wider question is, do we want the Court making any recommendations?

First of all, Apad, I have no stake in whether residents are eligible or not. I really don't care one way or the other. My beef with the court on this issue isn't about the substance of the recommendation, but their political nature as specific policy advocacy. The court has no place deciding that the best course of action is for the Assembly. Make recommendations about all the possible ways to reconcile the contradiction. Don't take one specific way and advocate for it in a legal opinion. This is common sense judicial neutrality. But there is clearly a misunderstanding or disagreement in the types of recommendations the court can or should make, so I'm proposing that we clarify the law.

The issue Kris and I, and several others, have with specific justices is unrelated to this proposal. Indeed, I wrote it before I was ever made aware of the other issue.

And before anybody thinks of trying to mark this as me being upset that the court suggested allowing residents to run for the Local Council, I'm going to tell you that I voted for that change in the first place. This isn't a partisan issue. It's about the integrity of the court.

Hop, it doesn't *matter* that the recommendations aren't legally binding on the Assembly. The recommendations shouldn't have ever been made in the first place, based upon the principle of judicial neutrality in political matters. You think it is innocuous, but a court making political policy suggestions is actually very serious. We take what the court says seriously, so a legal opinion and the recommendations within it are given a lot of weight in the Assembly. That's why we need to make sure the court isn't engaging in an actual policy debate, declaring preferences for specific policies. Justices can do that in their role as members of the Assembly, during assembly debate.

Also, no we're not reading it differently, and no I am not wrong. "Should" vs "could" isn't difficult to decipher.

You keep mentioning these "others" but so far, it's only you and Kris that wants to turn this into World War 3. This amounts to if Person A suggested Person B drink whole milk instead of low fat milk and Person B charged Person A with harassment. THERE WAS NO POLITICAL MOTIVE BEHIND IT AND SAYING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN ISN'T GONNA MAKE THE CONSPIRACY COME TRUE!!!

Frankly, TAC, you are completely missing the point and the way you've acted is totally inappropriate.

It doesn't matter if you "feel" you had no "political motive." You wrote an opinion that offered a very specific policy recommendation to the Assembly, rather than simply a list of ways the Assembly could legally fix the contradiction. That is what the issue is, not an issue of corruption or purposeful abuse of power. I'm not calling anybody a political hack. I'm saying the kind of recommendation you think is appropriate really isn't, because you're setting a precedent that allows future courts to entangle themselves in political debates by making specific policy recommendations to the Assembly.

For the record, you are conflating two different issues. There are separate complaints being made here. Mine is about the way the court went about the recommendations, and I'm concerned about maintaining judicial neutrality by amending the law to make it more explicit.

There are several others who are upset about the court allegedly mishandling the case and appeal. They are free to name themselves. I won't do it for them, because it's not my place to name-drop without their permission. Rest assured that the list is several more than just Kris and me.

The issue arose as a result of an unintended contradiction. We suggested a way to return to how it was except without the contradiction. It was completely neutral. Now, just because you don't agree with that, doesn't make you right. You interpret it differently and as a result, means that we can't possibly be right. You wanna talk about neutrality? Try it yourself.

Let's recap a bit. I submitted a list of questions to the Court, in the thread that TAC was kind enough to lock without answering. I would appreciate it if the Court could answer those questions. If there has indeed been no wrongdoing, then there should be no problem. If there has, I am sure it was not intended, since all three Justices have excellent credentials, but we still should know if something went wrong.

Back to the issue of political recommendations, I agree with Glen that Justices keep missing the point. Like he said, it doesn't matter that the Assembly can ignore the recommendation, the problem is that the recommendation was made. It's one thing to say "if you want to address the contradiction, these are your options", but it's another thing to say "you should pass X law".

Why? Because you should have no interest, as a Court, in whether the Local Council is or isn't open to non-citizens. It doesn't concern you as an institution, and it's not your job to suggest that the provision be reinstated. If the Assembly wants to do it then it will. What you did with that recommendation is indicate that, as a Court, you think the Council should be open to non-citizens. As individuals you are entitled to that opinion, but as a Court you are not. That is the problem here.

--

I see TAC replied just as I posted.

TAC,
Bottomline is the Court shouldn't be showing an interest in going back to how it was. You solved the contradiction, your job was done. Anything else was politics. In plain talk, you said "this provision was desirable, so you should reinstate it". It's not the Court's job to decide what the Assembly should pass, nor suggest it. You overstepped.

(07-31-2015, 04:03 PM)Apad Wrote: You and Kris questioned not only my objectivity and that of my fellow justices but also my trustworthiness to conduct court business.

Apad, were you completely objective in the handling of my appeal, and without any prior bias or conflicts of interest?

(07-31-2015, 10:08 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

(07-31-2015, 04:03 PM)Apad Wrote: You and Kris questioned not only my objectivity and that of my fellow justices but also my trustworthiness to conduct court business.

Apad, were you completely objective in the handling of my appeal, and without any prior bias or conflicts of interest?

Kris, you have admonished others in the past for acting in the manner that you and GR are doing at this moment.

You outright said you believed the court did not act honestly in this case. You then ask to see the courts deliberation in the hopes of finding a smoking gun or some gotcha politics moment for you to hit justices over the head with. You then told the court that they had to prove to you that they followed your list of judicial procedures as if the court was under your control or administration.

Disagree with the court, no problem...call into question my honesty and objectivity and I have a problem with that.

I dont call into question your character or ability as resident "party planner" of TSP and I think if you reflected on your words you would find that you went about this in the wrong manner.