The Agrinautica

To the ASUCD Senate
   Firstly I thought I would note in contrast to what one of you said, I did not have any part in writing the Court bill you saw today. As such I let him take all the questions about the bill. I was on the speakers list to speak and tried to get people's attention to get a deferment of my own, but neither of those tactics was successful. As such I have some things to say.
   ASIDE to everyone who wasn't at the senate meeting: the bill would have enabled Court members to author legislation pertaining to the function of the Court, as currently they cannot write any legislation.
   Firstly I'd like to point out that the major argument put up against the bill is a logical fallacy. The argument was that if we could write legislation about the Court, then (A) we could do whatever we want "even remove people," and (B) then if the legislation came before the Court we'd all be biased and it would be an unacceptable situation.
   Now see, unless you are arguing that the judicial branch should NEVER be reformed, presumably judicial legislation WILL be written, and presumably the SAME situation could occur where it gets challenged to teh Court and we would have the SAME conflict of interest - in that we were considering our own powers. The fact of who wrote the legislation is miniscule compared to the "conflict of interest" problem of evaluating ones own power. Basically the situation would be the same either way, and interpretations of "judicial review" in western law theory generally accept that supreme courts must be considered capable of evaluating even things that affect themselves.
   As to the argument I've identified as (A) above, I need hardly point out that this legislation would go before a commission and Senate just like any other legislation, and I'd like to further point out that nowhere does it state at this time that we cannot remove people from positions. That limit on our behaviour exists in my mind alone, and you are fortunate that the rest of the Court happens to agree with me.
   As to the concern brought up by Senator Jessica Engel, that Court members writing legislation creates an ethical problem related to conflict of interest, I'd like to explain the ethical argument for conflict of interest once again (one may recall I did so once already not too long ago). "Conflict of interest" does not exist on its own, it exists from a specific situation in which one's interest may be suspected to conflict with another interest in an unacceptable way. If I were to express a strong opinion on a controvercial bill in ASUCD, I would be setting myself up for a potential "conflict of interest" in that if it comes before the Court one could argue that I have already made up my mind against the legislation and am thus unable to render a fair consideration of the legislation on other merits. Now the reason this wouldn't apply to judicial legislation, is that one cannot rationally argue that I do not have an "interest" in judicial legislation from the start. It by definition affects me, as head of the ASUCD judiciary. My expressing an opinion about the legislation is small potatoes compared to the fact that I already have a vested interest in whether it passes or fails. As such I'd like to respond to the statement made that "I think it is unethical that [these Court members] are even here lobbying for this" with: no it is not unethical for the reasons above. I do not conduct myself in unethical ways.


   So yeah I just came from the ASUCD Senate meeting. They spent a significant amount of the time arguing about "sex toys." Our bill passed after some strong opposition. There's an irregularly scheduled Senate meeting TOMORROW (?!?). 5:30, Mee room. I don't know why it is occuring but I plan on being there.


EMOSNAIL - Your Source For Judicial News Worldwide - Spotlight on Ecuador!
   The Congress of Ecuador has dismissed ALL 31 members of the Ecuadorian Supreme Court. President Gutierrez, who called the special session of the Congress, stated that the Court had become "too close to the opposition." The motion passed by a narrow 52/48 margin. (source)
   Some of the dismissed Justices plan on appealing the situation to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Costa Rica.
   "Such sauce!" one may well exclaim. I would like to note however, that in the Supreme Court of Ecuador, new justices were appointed by the Court itself. This seems to me to be a Bad Idea, as it does allow the Court to be completely unchecked by the other branches and potentially drift away in some crazy direction.
   New justices are set to be sworn in next Thursday. But with no one on the Court to choose them, how will they be chosen?


Wiki Articles of the Day - read wiki - its good for you
Tiqula Bledsoe - self-proclaimed "Black Caeser of ASUCD"
Igor Birman - Patron saint of legal uprightness in ASUCD.
Gunrock - Blue psychotic whale of Davis. (seriously someone needs to take a picture of this thing)
   As you can see, UC Davis is an interesting place filled with mystical beings and extraordinary persons. I'm told this LJ is now a major referrer for the daviswiki site. Go team!


Previously, On EMOSNAIL
   Year Ago Yesterday: IHOP Revisited - And in the comments, more joke headlines, including another removal hearing against me.


In Other News: Kritsy made stew in the crock-pot the other day. It was awesome.