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?

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.

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?

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.

 

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.

Reply

Am I missing something here? Why are we not focusing at all on ensuring the Assembly actually questions nominees? I don't know about the Cabinet, but I don't consent to a nomination with the idea that the Assembly will just approve then. I'm wishing for the Assembly to be tough and thorough and ask plenty of questions. If that doesn't happen, that's not my or the Cabinet's fault, that's an issue for the Assembly to work on.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Weren't you already "tough and thorough"? Didn't you already "ask plenty of questions"? Presumably those tough and thorough questions are highly relevant to the nomination. And if they aren't, they shouldn't be asked. So why is it that the Assembly needs to augur and divine these important questions, lest the information the Cabinet and Chief Justice have never see the light of day? Why should the Assembly need to have the level of expertise that the Cabinet and Chief Justice are supposed to have, in order to have any and all positive or negative information that you guys had when you forwarded the nominations?

As we've seen, the Cabinet and Chief Justice aren't providing everything. Not a single legitimate negative point was given for Belschaft, despite an extensive history of scandals. There's a huge incentive to only provide the rosy picture, the positive stuff that will help ensure y'all's choice sails through. Public hearings wouldn't do that. Either you'd ask the tough questions, we'd get to see the answers, or you'd be unprofessional and full of bad faith and avoid any questions that would put negative points for the candidate on the record. (And run the very high risk of being called out for it, aka held accountable.) What exactly is the downside? What are you saying in private that wouldn't be relevant to the nominee's fit for office, and why would you be saying it all during an official deliberation anyways?

(This post was last modified: 05-08-2018, 07:35 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

The problem here seems to be communication. The Cabinet/CJ are working on the assumption that it's the Assembly's job to thoroughly vet their nomination, whereas the Assembly are working on the assumption that the vetting has already happened and they should be allowed to see the debate that took place.

Maybe a middle ground is a better way to go: The statement prepared by the Cabinet/CJ must include a succinct summary of all of the arguments, including the ones against, and full debate logs may be available on request.

Did some LC, MoRA, CRS stuff in the past. Do a lot of World Census stuff now.

Reply

I'm all for increased scrutiny, but right now Glen is the only person actually asking the Cabinet, Kris and myself any questions.

How about people use the existing scrutiny process rather than complain of it's inadequacies?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

I’ll try to address some of the main points. I’m not being thorough, so it’s entirely possible that I may miss something:

• I feel the Cabinet and Court were sufficiently thorough in vetting possible nominees. We submitted them to fairly detailed questioning, and held extensive discussions on the answers provided by these possible nominees, and on their fitness, in terms of temperament to sit on the Court.
  
• I acknowledge that each eventual nominee will have both positive and negative points, and agree that it will be good, moving forward, for us to include both points in our nomination statements. I think Roavin has said as much, so we are mostly in agreement in that regard. I look forward to seeing a more balanced statement when we announce the following, and any future nominations for the Court.
  
• I think accepting applications is a good idea, though I don’t think legislative change is necessary to accomplish that. We can and should announce the acceptance of applications when there is a vacancy in the Court, and consider those just as seriously as we would any other potential nominee. I would be happy to discuss, once the Court is installed, the issuance of internal regulations to commit ourselves to requesting applications from all legislators whenever there is a vacancy, if that would address concerns on this subject.
  
• I will stand against any and all attempts to force a disclosure of private communications between the Cabinet and the Court. I have already explained that these discussions rely on the ability to express opinions with candour, and publishing them serves no purpose whatsoever, particularly if we are already implementing the changes above. I know some consider this duplicity a sign of dishonesty, but nothing could be further from the truth. In our discussions, we consider various potential nominees and may have harsh and unflattering opinions on them, and it is preferable to present a more nuanced view to the Assembly, rather than show them comments that may be seen out of context or that may have been said in the heat of the moment. In addition, contrary to what has been suggested, the Assembly has to consider the nominee we present -hence my acknowledgement of the importance of thorough nomination statements and Assembly vetting-, not all individuals that were considered, however briefly, for nomination, or the exact words that were used to describe them in private.
  
• Pencil Sharpeners has rightly said that we expect the Assembly to conduct its own vetting, but I would like to take this further. Just as it is our job to properly vet a nominee and provide the Assembly with all the relevant information, the Assembly would be abdicating its responsibility if it didn’t conduct its own questioning and inquiries. We cannot continue with the practice of expressing “full support” and rubber-stamping a nominee, and we cannot excuse that under the pretence that legislators don’t know what to ask. I know that many legislators already are experienced enough to ask though and relevant questions, and newer legislators should always be encouraged to ask even the simplest questions, because those also matter. This process only works if all parties participate in good faith, and that means asking questions to the nominee and the nominators to ensure that you have the best information possible, rather than expecting a finished product to be voted on.

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 05-09-2018, 09:04 AM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

I'm all for increased scrutiny, but right now Glen is the only person actually asking the Cabinet, Kris and myself any questions.

How about people use the existing scrutiny process rather than complain of it's inadequacies?

Except the existing scrutiny process is only a single clause which states that, "(5) To appoint an Associate Justice, the Cabinet will consult with the High Court and present a willing and eligible individual to the Assembly for an approval vote."

Under the current wording of the Judicial Act, the Assembly is not responsible for conducting its own questionings and inquiries of the nominees when it is the Cabinets responsibility to properly vet the candidates and present them to the Assembly.

Reply

I'm all for increased scrutiny, but right now Glen is the only person actually asking the Cabinet, Kris and myself any questions.

How about people use the existing scrutiny process rather than complain of it's inadequacies?

Except the existing scrutiny process is only a single clause which states that, "(5) To appoint an Associate Justice, the Cabinet will consult with the High Court and present a willing and eligible individual to the Assembly for an approval vote."

Under the current wording of the Judicial Act, the Assembly is not responsible for conducting its own questionings and inquiries of the nominees when it is the Cabinets responsibility to properly vet the candidates and present them to the Assembly.

And the Assembly then gets to choose whether or not to approve them. Generally speaking the Assembly does discuss such matters before voting; there is nothing stopping people asking me questions if they want to; Glen has been, and I'm answering them.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

I'm all for increased scrutiny, but right now Glen is the only person actually asking the Cabinet, Kris and myself any questions.

How about people use the existing scrutiny process rather than complain of it's inadequacies?

Except the existing scrutiny process is only a single clause which states that, "(5) To appoint an Associate Justice, the Cabinet will consult with the High Court and present a willing and eligible individual to the Assembly for an approval vote."

Under the current wording of the Judicial Act, the Assembly is not responsible for conducting its own questionings and inquiries of the nominees when it is the Cabinets responsibility to properly vet the candidates and present them to the Assembly.

Come on. Are you telling me that you always assume that all nominations are right, and don't ever intend to use your position as legislator to actually verify that the Cabinet is nominating the right people?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

I'm all for increased scrutiny, but right now Glen is the only person actually asking the Cabinet, Kris and myself any questions.

How about people use the existing scrutiny process rather than complain of it's inadequacies?

Except the existing scrutiny process is only a single clause which states that, "(5) To appoint an Associate Justice, the Cabinet will consult with the High Court and present a willing and eligible individual to the Assembly for an approval vote."

Under the current wording of the Judicial Act, the Assembly is not responsible for conducting its own questionings and inquiries of the nominees when it is the Cabinets responsibility to properly vet the candidates and present them to the Assembly.

Come on. Are you telling me that you always assume that all nominations are right, and don't ever intend to use your position as legislator to actually verify that the Cabinet is nominating the right people?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Of course not. I don't believe all nominations are right, but the law currently states it is the Cabinet's responsibility to vet candidates, not the Assembly's. Glen is right in his previous post questioning why the Assembly needs to ask the questions that the Cabinet should have asked during the vetting process.

Reply

That is a painfully narrow reading of the law.

The Cabinet and Court have presented a (already acknowledged as lacking) statement and the full transcript of the survey and additional questions Belschaft had to answer. Maybe you should follow Serres' and Glen's examples and actually cross examine the nominee, rather than expecting us to give you all the information.

We've presented a nominee that we believe is sufficiently qualified. The onus is now on the Assembly to verify if our belief is well founded.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply