View Topic

I don't think that we have the pure number of motivated people needed for a completely separate branch. You're currently excluding 14 motivated people from being a part of the judiciary.

Do we have a second for the motion to expedite?

We do. 

You need to understand the idea of conflict of interests and impartiality.   That is paramount in any judiciary and it makes sense to include my revision in it. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

Can we compromise?  Perhaps the first few terms of Langsmen include both current and former members, but the 3rd (or 5th, or 7th, or whatever) term includes only former members?  Is that reasonable?

Can we compromise?  Perhaps the first few terms of Langsmen include both current and former members, but the 3rd (or 5th, or 7th, or whatever) term includes only former members?  Is that reasonable?

Why do they have to have current members?  Aside from "because they know the law", which is also a form of bias because it doesn't render them neutral or objective if the case involves laws they decided on?  Does anyone NOT UNDERSTAND the concept of conflict of interests and impartiality? 

Please be reasonable.  Having a separate branch of government, a judiciary, independent of the other two, needs to happen.  We have the active numbers to sustain it, and by this law, they're not going to be a standing judiciary, so there is the chance we'll be able to find people who aren't in the Storting or Riksrad able to serve. 

This is the key principle of the matter here.  I'm already compromising with the fact that my judicial proposal which was reasonable in every way, was rejected because Wintermoot doesn't like it, and wants only what he seeks instead.  I'm already compromising by giving him this rotating judiciary, and yet people can't compromise by removing that Current members of Storting / Riksrad clause.  It's time for you guys to compromise too.

Yes, it would technically be good to have an independent judiciary, but I don't think that we have enough people. PB's proposal sounds good to me, we can always re-amend it later if we're sure that we have enough people.

Do we have a second for the motion to expedite?

Yes, it would technically be good to have an independent judiciary, but I don't think that we have enough people. PB's proposal sounds good to me, we can always re-amend it later if we're sure that we have enough people.

Yes we do have enough people.  I already explained this.  PB's proposal is not adequate enough.  Mine is more reasonable.   We need a separate branch independent of the other two parts of government.  That is paramount and mandatory for a successful judiciary to work. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

The time for debate has run out. Do we have a motion?

I motion to vote

I motion to vote

Mr. Speaker I second.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

The motion to vote has been seconded, this is now going to a vote.