Wrong. The parts in bold outline the qualifications, not the criteria or process. How many retired judges will be in this pool? Unlimited? How will they determine “willing to serve”?
Because only the judges who are willing to serve will fill out the necessary forms promising to avoid political connections for a period of time after their term on the panel. You seem to believe that because there is no text that says, "Judges who are willing to serve will have to fill out such-and-such pieces of paper," or "The Judicial Council shall prepare an application," or the like, therefore it is fair for you to say it has NO "criteria," only "some qualifications." How now, chop-logic!
So the answer to your question is, the barrel of names from which the Council may select candidates by lot shall include all the judges who:
NOT ONLY meet the "passive" criteria (that's "qualifications" to you) -- the "resume tests" such as being a retired judge with no partisan elective office in their past,
BUT ALSO take a step to satisfy the "active" criteria ("qualifications") by committing, affirmatively, not to take office later, etc.
I agree with you that this could be a little better worded. But I could not disagree with you more that the text makes no provision for how they're to be selected, your semantic chop-logic notwithstanding.
Skepticism is a healthy thing, taken in moderation. But obviously my skepticism of these and other aspects of Prop 77 pales in comparison to the continued political raping we are suffering under the current system. The foregoing approach, for all its real or imagined risks, was closely patterned on an approach that, by nearly all accounts, has worked well (in the sense of avoiding gerrymandering and resulting "leverage" as is occurring in California, at least) in Iowa and Oregon. I'm for giving it a try -- and for fixing its imperfections in elections to come.
You have made it clear that you prefer the current "safe seats" approach, whereby 55% of the statewide vote is leveraged into a 65% legislative majority for Democrats BUT creates largely solid-conservative GOP districts, to Prop 77.
I prefer they not want to throw out the Republican platform as others seem to desire, or be the big-spending type RINOs that appear to back this measure.
Ted Costa and Tom McClintock are RINOs now? Maybe they meet your qualifications for that label. But what are your criteria?
What a start! Notwithstanding, thank you for your reply, even though it is four days later. I note that you were a bit tied up by other important news on the Batman thread.
Wrong. The parts in bold outline the qualifications, not the criteria or process. How many retired judges will be in this pool? Unlimited? How will they determine “willing to serve”?
Because only the judges who are willing to serve will fill out the necessary forms promising to avoid political connections for a period of time after their term on the panel. You seem to believe that because there is no text that says, "Judges who are willing to serve will have to fill out such-and-such pieces of paper," or "The Judicial Council shall prepare an application," or the like, therefore it is fair for you to say it has NO "criteria," only "some qualifications." How now, chop-logic!
No. That is not what I believe. Had you quoted me in context, that would be quite clear. Instead, you misrepresent my statements and continue the insults calling it “Chop-Logic.” I note that you cut off the various other questions I posted regarding criteria and process that are not included in the text of the measure. For the record, here is what I said again:
Wrong. The parts in bold outline the qualifications, not the criteria or process. How many retired judges will be in this pool? Unlimited? How will they determine “willing to serve”? Will they contact all judges meeting the qualifications, or only include those that volunteer? Will they include those no longer living in California? Will they put an age limit on it, or will 90-year-olds be included in the pool? Etc. etc. etc. The criteria is not outlined. Some qualifications are outlined.
I agree with you that this could be a little better worded. But I could not disagree with you more that the text makes no provision for how they're to be selected, your semantic chop-logic notwithstanding.
”Chop-logic.” There you go again.
You have made it clear that you prefer the current "safe seats" approach, whereby 55% of the statewide vote is leveraged into a 65% legislative majority for Democrats BUT creates largely solid-conservative GOP districts, to Prop 77.
No. I do not prefer that, as I have said on numerous occasions, including this thread. Please STOP misrepresenting me!
I prefer they not want to throw out the Republican platform as others seem to desire, or be the big-spending type RINOs that appear to back this measure.
Ted Costa and Tom McClintock are RINOs now? Maybe they meet your qualifications for that label. But what are your criteria?
No, I did not say or imply that. More misrepresentation by you.
You said: “I like by [SIC] Republicans conservative, but it appears you ONLY want them conservative … “I was referring to Republicans, not isolated to those who have voiced support for this measure. I certainly did not say that anyone supporting this measure is in favor of throwing out the Republican platform and a big-spending type. Many backers do, however, fit that description.I responded: “Again, not true. I prefer they not want to throw out the Republican platform as others seem to desire, or be the big-spending type RINOs that appear to back this measure.”