(02-18-2018, 04:22 PM)Tim Wrote: I think that keeping the Associate Justice as something which can also be in other government positions would be beneficial. I'll be frank, it's a boring as fuck job 95% of the time. There's a reason Court positions don't get as much fanfare as Executive or Legislative, and that's simply because there's less to do. 95% of the time, you're not actually doing anything.

I think your pool of prospective Associate Justices would increase dramatically if we didn't forbid them from holding other positions. There are plenty people well-versed in Law that simply aren't interested in Judiciary roles because it would require them to give up way more exciting positions.

I know Kris is going to be mad at me painting Associate Justice as a side-job, but that is exactly what I would view it as. I don't think there's anything wrong with painting it as that, as long as you make clear that it's just as important. I think it would be a very important side-job, and I think that people should take their side-jobs just as seriously as their main jobs. if you're working full-time, but also have a part-time job, your part-time job will fire you if you only show up to your full-time one.

Again we're differentiating from widening the pool to people who already hold positions to actually widening the pool to people who don't hold positions and could grow and develop.  The former alleged widening the pool only actually gives the same few people access to multiple powers which I'm frankly against.  

We're misusing "widening the pool" which should mean "allowing more people to have a voice and more people to participate" to "giving people who hold full-time jobs more power and therefore limiting who will actually get the job or position."

If we can't find enough eligible people, who don't already hold government positions, to take on an AJ position then maybe we don't need this many positions.  I think we do have enough eligible or willing to learn people outside of those already in power and therefore firewalling prevents the same few people taking the jobs and treating them as side jobs rather than someone who will treat it as their main responsibility and therefore not only give it their full attention but perhaps innovate. Maybe make a moot court instead of see it as a boring thing that they want because of the title and only pay attention to it when convenient.

If you find it boring, you're probably not either suited for the position or need to learn more about it. 

In my vision, the courts (if we stop treating them like a second tier branch of government) could expand with moot courts or other legal and law related areas that many NSers do enjoy.  
 

(02-18-2018, 04:45 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

I disagree. Service in the High Court is not, and should never be regarded as, a side job. It is exactly that kind of mistake that leads us to treat the judiciary as a less important branch, prone to politicisation and mismanagement. If someone treats their position of Associate Justice as a side job, then they probably should not be serving on the Court in the first place, because they clearly have their priorities elsewhere.

Regardless of the presence or absence of a firewall in this reform, I would be very concerned if we started having Associate Justices who regard their jobs in the Court as something to be done in addition to their "more exciting positions".

Finally, I see the same problems plaguing this act of reform as those of the Legislator Committee. 

The one difference I see between the Legislator Committee and this panel are that there do seem to be enough players who are not in government positions who would at least be interested in taking on the job. So why not encourage and actually widen the number of people in government rather than narrowing them?