Equitable Remedy for Judicial Council - Daily Cal Misses The Point

The Daily Cal ran an editorial last week on SB 178, a bill that would amend the by-laws to allow the ASUC Judicial Council to have flexibility in its penalties and punishments during election season. The bill was ultimately vetoed by President Leybovich on some minor technicalities with the bill; however, the DC editorial has very flawed logic and is off the mark.

"And since the Judicial Council’s decisions are unchecked by the senate or executive officers, this bill would allow too much power to rest in the hands of nine people."

Not true. The Senate has ultimate power over which council members it chooses to appoint and to remove any corrupt council members per Title 21 of the By-Laws. In addition, there is supposed to be protected power for the judiciary. That's the point of a three-branch government: checks and balances.

"ASUC’s response was to initiate legislation limiting the Council’s power by forbidding it to dole out harsher penalties. But senators should address the real problem: the offending bylaws. ASUC’s attempts to streamline the Judicial Council’s decision-making process only put band-aids on the problem instead of getting to the heart of the matter."

Which by-laws are "offending"? The "badgering" rule is not uncommon in federal practice. It's called "being held in contempt". People who don't show respect to the ASUC and its officials deserve the same minimal amount of respect.

"Part of the reason ASUC voted unanimously to pass this in order to "simplify" these processes is likely because all those on the Judicial Council were approved by ASUC members themselves. There is a certain amount of personal trust involved here. But what happens next year, when new senators usher new council members into office? Members and senators change each year—and the last thing we need is a corrupt or beholden Judicial Council with even more political clout than its antecedents."

Well, that's the problem with a representative constitutional democracy: you have to trust the leaders you elect and respect their judgment when it comes to appointments. You can cry about it, or you can vote. In addition, continuous pandering that this bill had the potential to give the Judicial Council more power is obnoxious and false.Email This Post!