(02-17-2018, 02:56 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

There were times, during the pre-Permanent Justices judiciary, that positions in the Court were treated as jobs you got if you hadn't been elected to the Cabinet, or positions from which you were good to resign if you managed to get a job in the Cabinet. That is as opposed to important and equally respectable jobs in their own right.

In that sense, I'm not referring to anything in your draft, rather I'm warning people against falling into that same trap, treating a hypothetical position of Associate Justice as a side job that they hold in addition to a "main job" as Minister, Chair or Deputy Minister. Both jobs are important, and we can't have people treating the Court as a secondary branch.

I mean I was thinking back to the same time period when justices were fall back positions or the one interesting time.

More importantly, if you're MoFA and have a portfolio or job to do and you're also an Associate Justice - which takes precedence? Then, why not avoid any potential conflicts that could lead to an associate justice needing to be recused consistently? I think each government position has its own portfolio and enough work to do and if they need more should probably focus on that. This doesn't widen the pool of people who are eligible as it allows a few people to hold multiple positions.

Moving backwards to an era where people held multiple positions, and some were treated likes sinecures is something I would warn against. Instead of making it so a few people can hold multiple positions and concentrate power in those hands, we should be creating a system that is sustainable and encourages growth. That has always been a goal and that's why I think Associate Justice should be firewalled.

Again the court system exists as a check against the executive and assembly or at least was originally perceived that way. If there is to be overlap between the branches, that limits the branch from standing on its own. Especially from the point of inclusiveness it seems that this would be a move backwards.

If we can't find enough people to run for positions then that means we need to reduce the number of positions or reconfigure the roles rather then let people hold multiple roles which doesn't actually encourage the training of new people. Nor does it widen the people as much as it gives fewer opportunities by making it easier for those entrenched in power to take multiple positions.