07-08-2020, 09:11 PM
@JoWhatup
With all due respect, you can not fix a problem by creating another problem in its wake. Even KK admits that there would be a conflict of interest by stating, "...while still minimizing [emphasis added] the risk of a conflict of interest." Minimizing the risk is not an elimination of it. This is a corrupt proposal prima facie.
You fail to convince us that this proposal;
a) maintains the concept of an independent, unbiased, objective judiciary.
b) wouldn't act as a precedent for further double office changes to the mandate
c) is ethical
It is unfortunate, but you must appoint other people to the judiciary that do not hold office in either the Assembly, the Cabinet, or the Council of Lazarene Security. Recruiting from those branches further gives privileged information to a Justice that she/he would not be privy to should they have been separate from that branch. The threat of having privileged information may aid or hinder prosecution or defense leading to an unfair, unethical, and unjust trial. At that point, why have a judiciary? The problem isn't that you can't find anyone. The problem is that you can not find anyone that you trust aligns completely with all of your beliefs. Do not use the excuse of "qualifications" either. A Justice should sit en banc during trial anyway, three heads are better than one and way better qualified than how the courts have been currently running i.e. outside mandated judicial procedure. (No offense to Wymondham whose opinions I highly respect and who has labored greatly in the name of justice). It isn't like the assembly can't remove them anyway should their performance be counter to justice.
With all due respect, you can not fix a problem by creating another problem in its wake. Even KK admits that there would be a conflict of interest by stating, "...while still minimizing [emphasis added] the risk of a conflict of interest." Minimizing the risk is not an elimination of it. This is a corrupt proposal prima facie.
You fail to convince us that this proposal;
a) maintains the concept of an independent, unbiased, objective judiciary.
b) wouldn't act as a precedent for further double office changes to the mandate
c) is ethical
It is unfortunate, but you must appoint other people to the judiciary that do not hold office in either the Assembly, the Cabinet, or the Council of Lazarene Security. Recruiting from those branches further gives privileged information to a Justice that she/he would not be privy to should they have been separate from that branch. The threat of having privileged information may aid or hinder prosecution or defense leading to an unfair, unethical, and unjust trial. At that point, why have a judiciary? The problem isn't that you can't find anyone. The problem is that you can not find anyone that you trust aligns completely with all of your beliefs. Do not use the excuse of "qualifications" either. A Justice should sit en banc during trial anyway, three heads are better than one and way better qualified than how the courts have been currently running i.e. outside mandated judicial procedure. (No offense to Wymondham whose opinions I highly respect and who has labored greatly in the name of justice). It isn't like the assembly can't remove them anyway should their performance be counter to justice.