13 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrWell, that is for all intents and purposes the equivalent of an election is it not?
I prefer the current process of nomination and acceptance. But I'm willing to hear arguments in favor of electing some colleagues.
edit: have we already decided on who should definately be part of the court?
13 Oct 10
Originally posted by generalissimoI think perhaps we might want to consider what this court's function will be (if any) before we worry so much about who's on it. 😉
Well, that is for all intents and purposes the equivalent of an election is it not?
edit: have we already decided on who should definately be part of the court?
13 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76Overruled! The function of the court is to render judgments on seemingly intractable arguments here in the fora. We'll hear the arguments, ask pointed questions, and decide cases on their merits. Those merits will include things like internal consistency, correspondence with known fact and available evidence, coherence with widely shared normative standards, etc. To prevent judicial tyranny, I'll need colleagues from across the ideological spectrum...
I think perhaps we might want to consider what this court's function will be (if any) before we worry so much about who's on it. 😉
It is up to you to find them...
13 Oct 10
Originally posted by bbarrIs it time for a revolution yet? Did I miss my cue?
Overruled! The function of the court is to render judgments on seemingly intractable arguments here in the fora. We'll hear the arguments, ask pointed questions, and decide cases on their merits. Those merits will include things like internal consistency, correspondence with known fact and available evidence, coherence with widely shared normative standards ...[text shortened]... l need colleagues from across the ideological spectrum...
It is up to you to find them...