Comments on: proposed constitutional amendments http://pd-hawaii.com/blog/2006/10/24/proposed-constitutional-amendments/ This is a place for members of Progressive Democrats of Hawai‘i to express their thoughts and exasperations about political happenings. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:01:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: rachel http://pd-hawaii.com/blog/2006/10/24/proposed-constitutional-amendments/#comment-210 rachel Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:11:06 +0000 http://pd-hawaii.com/blog/2006/10/24/proposed-constitutional-amendments/#comment-210 On question 5 about ag subsidies... I just got an email from the Sierra Club recommending a "No" vote for #5. I kinda wondered about that one, especially since the description of the ammendment says, "The proposed amendment would authorize the State to issue special purpose revenue bonds to assist agricultural enterprises serving important agricultural lands." Then they define "important agricultural lands" as: 1. Are capable of producing sustained high agricultural yields; 2. Contribute to the State's economic base; and 3. Are needed to promote the expansion of agricultural activities. It seems that the Sierra Club is against this amendment due to the amount of water that would be used. Furthermore, these requirements seem like they would benefit large agri-business types rather than smaller farmers and diversified agriculture that have been trying to gain a foothold in the state. Smaller farmers would perhaps not be able to "sustain high ag yields." On question 5 about ag subsidies… I just got an email from the Sierra Club recommending a “No” vote for #5.

I kinda wondered about that one, especially since the description of the ammendment says, “The proposed amendment would authorize the State to issue
special purpose revenue bonds to assist agricultural enterprises
serving important agricultural lands.”

Then they define “important agricultural lands” as:
1. Are capable of producing sustained high agricultural yields;
2. Contribute to the State’s economic base; and
3. Are needed to promote the expansion of agricultural activities.

It seems that the Sierra Club is against this amendment due to the amount of water that would be used. Furthermore, these requirements seem like they would benefit large agri-business types rather than smaller farmers and diversified agriculture that have been trying to gain a foothold in the state. Smaller farmers would perhaps not be able to “sustain high ag yields.”

]]> By: Steve Laudig http://pd-hawaii.com/blog/2006/10/24/proposed-constitutional-amendments/#comment-209 Steve Laudig Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:22:55 +0000 http://pd-hawaii.com/blog/2006/10/24/proposed-constitutional-amendments/#comment-209 "this seems like a no brainer to me. seventy isn’t what it used to be and if there are justices that reach that age, but still want to sit on the bench, i don’t think the law should require their removal." As a practicing attorney, here's my concern. The longer a judge is insulated from the cares and concerns of daily life, and making a living the more they tend to suffer from "black robeitis" an arrogance and incomprehension of life outside the courtroom. No one is seriously arguing that they get smarter with age. The law isn't that complicated that it needs decades of familiarity to make the "just" decision. If anything it should be 20 and out. Otherwise the judges become fossils deciding cases today based upon their own personal data from generations ago. Seventy isn't what it used to be, indeed, 70 is the new 90. Is the Chinese geriatric leadership model what we need in a judiciary? Actually no. People fresh out of law school know more about the state of law than those on the bench in some respects, they just don't have the life experience. those on the bench for more than 20 years or so have lost any notice of contemporary practice and life on the street. Plus they tend to think they are better than mere, unrobed, individuals. This proposed amendment is a bit crude by using simply age. Since I favor cycling people thru the judiciary rather than encouraging them to fossilize in place. I would have suggested a fiscal solution. After 20 years on the bench your pension is vested and annual income from it will not increase regardless of how long you stay on the bench. that isn't age discrimination but "seniority" discrimination, if you will, plus they get generous pensions. Move over, make room, let's not suffer from judicial arteriorsclerosis. anyway that's my 2 cents worth. “this seems like a no brainer to me. seventy isn’t what it used to be and if there are justices that reach that age, but still want to sit on the bench, i don’t think the law should require their removal.”

As a practicing attorney, here’s my concern. The longer a judge is insulated from the cares and concerns of daily life, and making a living the more they tend to suffer from “black robeitis” an arrogance and incomprehension of life outside the courtroom. No one is seriously arguing that they get smarter with age. The law isn’t that complicated that it needs decades of familiarity to make the “just” decision. If anything it should be 20 and out. Otherwise the judges become fossils deciding cases today based upon their own personal data from generations ago. Seventy isn’t what it used to be, indeed, 70 is the new 90. Is the Chinese geriatric leadership model what we need in a judiciary? Actually no. People fresh out of law school know more about the state of law than those on the bench in some respects, they just don’t have the life experience. those on the bench for more than 20 years or so have lost any notice of contemporary practice and life on the street. Plus they tend to think they are better than mere, unrobed, individuals. This proposed amendment is a bit crude by using simply age. Since I favor cycling people thru the judiciary rather than encouraging them to fossilize in place. I would have suggested a fiscal solution. After 20 years on the bench your pension is vested and annual income from it will not increase regardless of how long you stay on the bench. that isn’t age discrimination but “seniority” discrimination, if you will, plus they get generous pensions. Move over, make room, let’s not suffer from judicial arteriorsclerosis. anyway that’s my 2 cents worth.

]]>