On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I retract my previous similarly-titled proposal. >> >> Proposal: Prerogative implies choice >> (AI = 2, please) >> >> Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this text: >> >> b) Justiciar. Once within three days after an appeal case comes >> to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN make that case either >> hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not done >> so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to >> that case during this period. If the Justiciar has done so, >> then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a panel including >> (if the case is hot) or excluding (if it is cold) the >> Justiciar, if possible. >> >> Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Prerogative of Justiciar is >> assigned to the person (if any) to whom the Prerogative of Default >> Justice was assigned immediately before the adoption of this proposal. > > I'll be voting against this; the delay it imposes is unacceptable. > > -root >
Currently these assignements can be ASAP, which is 7 days, this doesn't increase that, just limits the start time. Although I think it should be possible for the Justiciar to make emself hot or cold as well, thus making all appeals hot/cold for a time.
