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.”
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?Technically unlimited, although certainly one would have to volunteer in order to in the "barrel." Volunteering would be undertaken by making (presumably in writing on a form to be developed) the commitments noted in the text of the initiative regarding a one-year embargo on post-panel politicking, etc.
Will they include those no longer living in California?Now THAT is a good question. (I don't think the other ones are "bad," but this is the best of them.) The text doesn't restrict the pool to Californians, no, as it should. But I sense that this is, in practical terms, a minor concern. How likely is it that a not-Californian-anymore retired judge will even wish to serve, and to travel to Sacramento for months (at least intermittently, for hearings) to do so? If any DO volunteer, and if any make the roster of judges chosen "by lot" by the Clerk, there is no chance (practically; even if there is one technically) that any of them will survive the challenge process that follows. Still, the text should be changed to reflect that current Californian residency is a qualification.
Will they put an age limit on it, or will 90-year-olds be included in the pool?No, there is no age limit in the text. But this bothers me a lot less than (even) the "Californian" issue above. As with that issue: the rare judges who volunteer despite being too old for the role can be "challenged" out of the pool if they are part of the initialy "by lot" list. You make a good point for future improvements, though, such as an age limit of 72 or 75, perhaps. (Must be careful there, as limit perceived as too low may irk older voters into rejecting the measure when they otherwise would not have.)
Etc. etc. etc. The criteria is [sic] not outlined. Some qualifications are outlined.I still disagree. Some of the criteria that I'd like to see, and that you apparently NEED to see before you could support the measure, are not spelled out, no.
But the four or so objections I've counted you as making, other than the "etc." -- namely (1) volunteers only? how do we know who's volunteered?; (2) potentially unlimited pool?; (3) Californians only?; and (4) age limit? -- are either not troubling to me at all, as with #s 1 and 2,
or, as to #s 3 and 4, will be rendered harmless, in my view at least, by a combination of self-selection (for the very old, and non-Californians, are very unlikely to fill out the forms required for being "in the pool" in the first place) and "challenges" to remove any rare birds that do make it into the chosen-by-lot roster.
Your last two posts contain various and sundry insults, but I will just add those to the cost of my losing my temper last week, as justly deserved payback, if not true.