So now the latest fuss is about the Chief Justice

[OJ]

unconstitutional.. I think ... unprecedented and unconventional is good.

[Gamma]

what he said is the cause for concern not that he was acting per se ... but I believe that issue of acting may now be moot.

[Islandman]

Hopefully this is true...

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/...8?profile=1373

Andrew needs to take an “L”on this issue and move on. He may have had good intentions but it’s not working out the way he expected and has become a major distraction. Time to cut losses and get back to the many other issues at hand.

[Gamma]

I think he is obligated to make a statement correcting or apologizing for his earlier statement to assuage the judiciary that no mal-intent was present and or that he misspoke.

my own feeling is that a lawyer in the administration who has ,bench experience' had their eye on the job ....

[Islandman]

my own feeling is that a lawyer in the administration who has ,bench experience' had their eye on the job ...

I have heard some who share the same sentiment wonder if the Attorney General is that person

[Assasin]

Don't you think the advocacy position of the judges is also wrong and can send a political message? Do they realize they are also telling others to take up advocacy when they (the judges) don't do their jobs?

[Lazie]

Hopefully this is true...

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/...8?profile=1373

Andrew needs to take an “L”on this issue and move on. He may have had good intentions but it’s not working out the way he expected and has become a major distraction. Time to cut losses and get back to the many other issues at hand.

Change don't come easy. He should take 2 steps back and re-evaluate how else to tackle this bull. People complain about the justice system, but when the executive attempts to address it they start complaining. Well if a screw driver can't work, get a sledge hammer.

[Reggaedoc]

Don't you think the advocacy position of the judges is also wrong and can send a political message? Do they realize they are also telling others to take up advocacy when they (the judges) don't do their jobs?

Judged advocating for the rule of law can never be wrong. That is what they are there for. To uphold the constitution by all citizens including the PM and if means advocating and protesting eediat decisions by people with bad intentions(my opinon) i.e unconstitutional decisions by the legislative or executive branches then advocate they must. Plain and simple

[Lazie]

Judged advocating for the rule of law can never be wrong. That is what they are there for. To uphold the constitution by all citizens including the PM and if means advocating and protesting eediat decisions by people with bad intentions(my opinon) i.e unconstitutional decisions by the legislative or executive branches then advocate they must. Plain and simple

Doc, remember.... it is the people with "bad intentions" who are being held accountable. How many times we hear people questioning Delroy Chuck about the Justice system. The fact is if the citizens are not pleased with the justice system, whose feet will be held to the fire? Certainly not the judges. So, if we're going to hold those with "bad intentions" accountable for the inadequate justice system how we going to complain when .... and accuse them of having bad intentions when they attempt to address the issue?

[OJ]

They also advertise their position on a possible future judgement

[Reggaedoc]

Doc, remember.... it is the people with "bad intentions" who are being held accountable. How many times we hear people questioning Delroy Chuck about the Justice system. The fact is if the citizens are not pleased with the justice system, whose feet will be held to the fire? Certainly not the judges. So, if we're going to hold those with "bad intentions" accountable for the inadequate justice system how we going to complain when .... and accuse them of having bad intentions when they attempt to address the issue?

If a judge's decision does not please the people, then there is a thing called "appeal". That is how judges are made to account for bad decisions. Judges usually try to be careful in their decisions because they don't like their decisions to be reversed on appeal. On the other hand, politicians in a sham democracy don't care one bit about the ordinary man, especially in a farce like the Westminster, so-called system of democracy like ours where the idiots can't be primaried out by the people. How do you hold the politicians acountable in Jamaica?. Maybe we should all dress in white t-shirts, dogs included, and March in front of Gordon House in fine Tivoli style.

[Lazie]

If a judge's decision does not please the people, then there is a thing called "appeal". That is how judges are made to account for bad decisions. Judges usually try to be careful in their decisions because they don't like their decisions to be reversed on appeal. On the other hand, politicians in a sham democracy don't care one bit about the ordinary man, especially in a farce like the Westminster, so-called system of democracy like ours where the idiots can't be primaried out by the people. How do you hold the politicians acountable in Jamaica?. Maybe we should all dress in white t-shirts, dogs included, and March in front of Gordon House in fine Tivoli style.

Appeal? Is that entirely true? No. Right now there is an advocacy for the prosecution to have the right to appeal. The regular citizen would need to have the finances to appeal in a higher court. In Jamaica there are elections for the voters to hold some politicians accountable. Maybe the white t shirts won't work, but a black gown as we see the judges got what they wanted. Appeal? Come on Doc, be real.

[Gamma]

what is your message here Lazie?

the PM was within his rights to say what he said and the judges are wrong to have taken such a public position on the matter?

[Lazie]

what is your message here Lazie?

the PM was within his rights to say what he said and the judges are wrong to have taken such a public position on the matter?

My message ...no ... my point here is that there needs to be some accountability. It was last evening I was listening to a discussion only to find out a report was done from 07 which recommends that there be some reporting by the judicary. Todate that is not being done.

The PM raised the issue of accountability when appointing Justice Sykes and now there is the claim that he is interfering. If the judicary is reporting to parliament as recommended by the 07 report, does the cry of separation of powers come up again?

"... the judges are wrong to have taken such a public position on the matter?"

On Monday, when I heard of their action I was thinking what if the matter ended up in the courts, would justice remain blind? ......however, an attorney indicated going to a higher court . Fortunately it won't come to that.

[Reggaedoc]

Appeal? Is that entirely true? No. Right now there is an advocacy for the prosecution to have the right to appeal. The regular citizen would need to have the finances to appeal in a higher court. In Jamaica there are elections for the voters to hold some politicians accountable. Maybe the white t shirts won't work, but a black gown as we see the judges got what they wanted. Appeal? Come on Doc, be real.

What elections?