Friday, June 23, 2006
But I wanted to
There's an interesting discussion raging here on appeal ground II.B. mentioned here as one of the more valid arguments raised in the Student Action appeal. The concern is whether the Judicial Council can replace a decision that they had made, even though the appeal period had passed.
The argument in the appeal rambles about "commonly accepted legal principles" and such, when no requirement to adhere to them exists in the rules the ASUC follows. Also there's some stuff about how a default decision can only be issued during a hearing, which isn't at all what the quoted JRP says, and even some bitching about the number of justices. Whatever. It's an SA brief, and is therefore, by definition, stupid.
The underlying issue, however, is valid. There are concerns about what might happen in the future, and so forth. One thing it highlights is whether it was wise for the Judicial Council to refuse to rule on Andy Ratto's other charges. Had he won, and two more censures issued to the candidates for refusing to follow a lawful Judicial Council order, even if this appeal succeeds on these grounds, the candidates are still disqualified. As it stands now, if the appeal succeeds on these grounds, we might be headed for another hearing, which'll postpone results for yet another month or so, probably into the school year.
I was pretty convinced of the validity of this claim, until I realized I was misremembering the ASUC Constitution, which says:
All decisions of the Judicial Council shall be final unless reversed by subsequent council action.
I had thought it was "unless reversed on appeal," but without that, I don't think this claim has enough validity to stand up in the ASUC.
. . .
. . .