(05-08-2018, 05:32 PM)The Serres Republic Wrote: I completely disagree with this idea of publicizing the selection process. Appointment of the justice and associate justice should be left as it is. The assembly is supplied with the relevant information upon being presented with the nominee and that is more than sufficient.

Were you? As even Roavin agreed, the statement given for Belschaft did not include all relevant information. It was a PR-driven statement that didn't provide really any information at all. We were simply left to either believe or not believe that the Cabinet's opinion was true, rather than being provided with all the information to reach those conclusions ourselves. You don't think an open process, wherein the candidates answer questions we all get to see, would provide more? Why, exactly, should the selection process be kept secret?

(05-08-2018, 05:32 PM)The Serres Republic Wrote: Discussions should be private to allow for frank and harsh examinations of the potential candidate.

What "frank and harsh examination" occurs that the Assembly shouldn't be privy to? While Kris may want to maintain plausible deniability when it comes to his feelings about other players, shouldn't the Assembly also have a "frank" examination of the candidates? Ideally, that's what we're all doing, isn't it? In that case, what type of examination is occurring in private that would be so damaging to the process that it should never see the light day? That kind of process sounds awfully unhealthy and unprofessional, being open to shadiness and bias that we assume wouldn't happen but we have no way of actually ensuring accountability.

(05-08-2018, 05:32 PM)The Serres Republic Wrote: Not just that but it allows us to discuss potentially classified information about any potential candidate during this process.

What potentially classified information would be relevant to a judicial nomination?

(05-08-2018, 05:32 PM)The Serres Republic Wrote: All that publicizing this system does is restrict our ability to freely discuss and debate all factors that could be pertinent to a potential candidates selection. Furthermore it breeds distrust between our elected officials and our legislators. We should be able to count on them to act appropriate to their position behind close doors especially in the size of community that we have.

To be frank, you aren't the one freely discussing or debating anything. You're actually the one being left in the dark about how the selections are being made. Do you know which TSPers are even in consideration? No, you don't even know that, because that too has been secret so far. Transparency is a good thing. It's a necessary part of democracy. What breeds distrust is unaccountability. You mention that we should be able to count on the Chief Justice and the Cabinet "to act appropriately to their position behind closed doors"--- but you actually can't count on that, because there is zero accountability period. And the Chief Justice is asking that there never be accountability at all, even once nominations are done are over with!

The current process provides a lot of incentives to behave inappropriately, as you put it. It's secret. It's informal. It's politicized, according to Kris. And from the sounds of it, it's unprofessional and uncivil at times. How often do secret/BCD group DMs produce a moderated, civil, and accountable discussion? Not very often! (I should know, I've been involved in a lot!!) All I'm asking is that the 5 people who get to shape our judiciary be held accountable for the way they do so. We can't do that if the process isn't public. We can't do that if we're not actually in possession of all the relevant information and simply given the rosiest picture possible. What we have right now isn't a real assessment of the choices, but rather the Cabinet/CJ delivering a nominee that we're expected to approve because they've already been "vetted" (by a process we can't see). And so far, the Chief Justice's response to that is that the Assembly should re-vet the candidates and re-do all the work that the Cabinet did, without any hint of what they found or discussed, and maybe we'll discover the important stuff.

 

(05-08-2018, 06:55 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

I would say Roavin has been fairly accurate in his assessment.

I said the process was "hopelessly politicised" in the sense that I feel I don't see eye to eye with some Ministers on what qualities the Associate Justices should possess, or how to weigh the various criteria when deciding who should be nominated. It was said after a particularly frustrating discussion, made more difficult by the fact that I also have some differences with certain Ministers on how discussions should be approached.

The sentiment I have just expressed remains (and I obviously think my view is the correct one), but perhaps I should've used a term that didn't imply that politics had somehow influenced decisions, which isn't at all the case.

We'll never know if this is a walk-back or if your previous posts were your true feelings, because we can't hold you accountable in any real sense! A public hearing would show the Assembly exactly what is happening.