Nicholson judgment torn apart

Is the judgment serious enough to warrant impeaching Nicholson? I think it
is, he SERIOUSLY screwed up!-

He may have screwed up, but you can't impeach a judge because he made
a ruling that was overturned on appeal.
That's why there are appeal courts - because judges are human and thus
imperfect.
If it could be proven that, for the sake of ridiculous example,
Nicholson smoked 3 big joints before writing his verdict, or had spent
several consecutive nights on the piss and cooked the whole thing up
over breakfast one morning then he'd be rightly debarred (or is it
disbarred?). But judges shouldn't be impeached for making imperfect
decisions.
That would make it very difficult for a bold judge to make a bold
decision and thereby set a precedent.

Yes, I agree with that.

I think that the difficulty here is that the appeal court has now held
that he acted improperly as a judge because he disobeyed a number of
the standard rules. So it isn't his judgement per se that's the
problem, it is his mentioning Mbeki, taking hearsay as evidence and
acting in an apparently political manner. These are against the rules.

I find it difficult to make a judgement on this one myself, actually.
From the general murkiness of the situation and people and the smoke
and fire argument [that forgets dry ice], I'm inclined to think that
Nicholson was right about at least some of the political goings on. I
was disappointed to see Zuma let of the hook - corruption is a serious
problem for South Africa and having it properly prosecuted is
important to improving our international image and restoring some
inwards investment - so I'm pleased to see the case back. I'm also,
for completely private reasons, delighted that this has caused the
dollar to jump for just the few days that I need it to - but that
wouldn't, of course, influence my judgement on the rightness or
wrongness of the case itself.

I'm generally in favour of outspoken and brave judges - if only for
their entertainment value, Judge Pickles in the UK provided tons of
material for Private Eye that comics would have found hard to invent.
Interestingly Judge Pickles had sound views on ganja, that are echoed
in the New Scientist magazine this week.

Gary

2009-01-16 09:01:17 UTC

Is the judgment serious enough to warrant impeaching Nicholson? I think it
is, he SERIOUSLY screwed up!-

He may have screwed up, but you can't impeach a judge because he made
a ruling that was overturned on appeal.
That's why there are appeal courts - because judges are human and thus
imperfect.
If it could be proven that, for the sake of ridiculous example,
Nicholson smoked 3 big joints before writing his verdict, or had spent
several consecutive nights on the piss and cooked the whole thing up
over breakfast one morning then he'd be rightly debarred (or is it
disbarred?). But judges shouldn't be impeached for making imperfect
decisions.
That would make it very difficult for a bold judge to make a bold
decision and thereby set a precedent.

Yes, I agree with that.
I think that the difficulty here is that the appeal court has now held
that he acted improperly as a judge because he disobeyed a number of
the standard rules. So it isn't his judgement per se that's the
problem, it is his mentioning Mbeki, taking hearsay as evidence and
acting in an apparently political manner. These are against the rules.
I find it difficult to make a judgement on this one myself, actually.
From the general murkiness of the situation and people and the smoke
and fire argument [that forgets dry ice], I'm inclined to think that
Nicholson was right about at least some of the political goings on. I
was disappointed to see Zuma let of the hook - corruption is a serious
problem for South Africa and having it properly prosecuted is
important to improving our international image and restoring some
inwards investment - so I'm pleased to see the case back. I'm also,
for completely private reasons, delighted that this has caused the
dollar to jump for just the few days that I need it to - but that
wouldn't, of course, influence my judgement on the rightness or
wrongness of the case itself.
I'm generally in favour of outspoken and brave judges - if only for
their entertainment value, Judge Pickles in the UK provided tons of
material for Private Eye that comics would have found hard to invent.
Interestingly Judge Pickles had sound views on ganja, that are echoed
in the New Scientist magazine this week.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Section 8(1)(3)(a) of the constitution states that a judge must (no
choice) observe this rule of law:

"When applying a provision of the Bill of Rights to a natural or
juristic person ... in order to give effect to the right in the bill,
[a judge] must apply, or if necessary develop, the common law to the
extent that legislation does not give effect to that right."

In a context where it is obvious that most of the cabinet probably had
been involved in the arms deal corruption but only Zuma was charged, I
think Nicholson was trying to implement the above legal command.

Lance

Bob Dubery

2009-01-16 09:49:29 UTC

Post by Gary
In a context where it is obvious that most of the cabinet probably had
been involved in the arms deal corruption but only Zuma was charged, I
think Nicholson was trying to implement the above legal command.

Well it's been ALLEGED that various people had been involved in arms
deal corruption, and one of them is behind bars. Allegation doesn't
and shouldn't make something obvious. And was Zuma in the cabinet at
the time? When he received the "loan" from Shabir Shaik he wasn't even
an MP.

Peter H.M. Brooks

2009-01-16 10:00:54 UTC

Post by Gary

Is the judgment serious enough to warrant impeaching Nicholson? I think it
is, he SERIOUSLY screwed up!-

He may have screwed up, but you can't impeach a judge because he made
a ruling that was overturned on appeal.
That's why there are appeal courts - because judges are human and thus
imperfect.
If it could be proven that, for the sake of ridiculous example,
Nicholson smoked 3 big joints before writing his verdict, or had spent
several consecutive nights on the piss and cooked the whole thing up
over breakfast one morning then he'd be rightly debarred (or is it
disbarred?). But judges shouldn't be impeached for making imperfect
decisions.
That would make it very difficult for a bold judge to make a bold
decision and thereby set a precedent.

Yes, I agree with that.
I think that the difficulty here is that the appeal court has now held
that he acted improperly as a judge because he disobeyed a number of
the standard rules. So it isn't his judgement per se that's the
problem, it is his mentioning Mbeki, taking hearsay as evidence and
acting in an apparently political manner. These are against the rules.
I find it difficult to make a judgement on this one myself, actually.
From the general murkiness of the situation and people and the smoke
and fire argument [that forgets dry ice], I'm inclined to think that
Nicholson was right about at least some of the political goings on. I
was disappointed to see Zuma let of the hook - corruption is a serious
problem for South Africa and having it properly prosecuted is
important to improving our international image and restoring some
inwards investment - so I'm pleased to see the case back. I'm also,
for completely private reasons, delighted that this has caused the
dollar to jump for just the few days that I need it to - but that
wouldn't, of course, influence my judgement on the rightness or
wrongness of the case itself.
I'm generally in favour of outspoken and brave judges - if only for
their entertainment value, Judge Pickles in the UK provided tons of
material for Private Eye that comics would have found hard to invent.
Interestingly Judge Pickles had sound views on ganja, that are echoed
in the New Scientist magazine this week.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Section 8(1)(3)(a) of the constitution states that a judge must (no
"When applying a provision of the Bill of Rights to a natural or
juristic person ... in order to give effect to the right in the bill,
[a judge] must apply, or if necessary develop, the common law to the
extent that legislation does not give effect to that right."
In a context where it is obvious that most of the cabinet probably had
been involved in the arms deal corruption but only Zuma was charged, I
think Nicholson was trying to implement the above legal command.

That makes sense - if you mean that he was developing common law.

Gary

2009-01-16 13:12:42 UTC

Post by Gary

Is the judgment serious enough to warrant impeaching Nicholson? I think it
is, he SERIOUSLY screwed up!-

He may have screwed up, but you can't impeach a judge because he made
a ruling that was overturned on appeal.
That's why there are appeal courts - because judges are human and thus
imperfect.
If it could be proven that, for the sake of ridiculous example,
Nicholson smoked 3 big joints before writing his verdict, or had spent
several consecutive nights on the piss and cooked the whole thing up
over breakfast one morning then he'd be rightly debarred (or is it
disbarred?). But judges shouldn't be impeached for making imperfect
decisions.
That would make it very difficult for a bold judge to make a bold
decision and thereby set a precedent.

Yes, I agree with that.
I think that the difficulty here is that the appeal court has now held
that he acted improperly as a judge because he disobeyed a number of
the standard rules. So it isn't his judgement per se that's the
problem, it is his mentioning Mbeki, taking hearsay as evidence and
acting in an apparently political manner. These are against the rules.
I find it difficult to make a judgement on this one myself, actually.
From the general murkiness of the situation and people and the smoke
and fire argument [that forgets dry ice], I'm inclined to think that
Nicholson was right about at least some of the political goings on. I
was disappointed to see Zuma let of the hook - corruption is a serious
problem for South Africa and having it properly prosecuted is
important to improving our international image and restoring some
inwards investment - so I'm pleased to see the case back. I'm also,
for completely private reasons, delighted that this has caused the
dollar to jump for just the few days that I need it to - but that
wouldn't, of course, influence my judgement on the rightness or
wrongness of the case itself.
I'm generally in favour of outspoken and brave judges - if only for
their entertainment value, Judge Pickles in the UK provided tons of
material for Private Eye that comics would have found hard to invent.
Interestingly Judge Pickles had sound views on ganja, that are echoed
in the New Scientist magazine this week.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

That makes sense - if you mean that he was developing common law.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Yes. I think selective prosecution does involve a kind of violation of
human rights. And selective investigation and selective prosecution
can easily hide behind words like "allegedly".

Lance

Peter H.M. Brooks

2009-01-16 13:40:05 UTC

Post by Gary

Is the judgment serious enough to warrant impeaching Nicholson? I think it
is, he SERIOUSLY screwed up!-

He may have screwed up, but you can't impeach a judge because he made
a ruling that was overturned on appeal.
That's why there are appeal courts - because judges are human and thus
imperfect.
If it could be proven that, for the sake of ridiculous example,
Nicholson smoked 3 big joints before writing his verdict, or had spent
several consecutive nights on the piss and cooked the whole thing up
over breakfast one morning then he'd be rightly debarred (or is it
disbarred?). But judges shouldn't be impeached for making imperfect
decisions.
That would make it very difficult for a bold judge to make a bold
decision and thereby set a precedent.

Yes, I agree with that.
I think that the difficulty here is that the appeal court has now held
that he acted improperly as a judge because he disobeyed a number of
the standard rules. So it isn't his judgement per se that's the
problem, it is his mentioning Mbeki, taking hearsay as evidence and
acting in an apparently political manner. These are against the rules.
I find it difficult to make a judgement on this one myself, actually.
From the general murkiness of the situation and people and the smoke
and fire argument [that forgets dry ice], I'm inclined to think that
Nicholson was right about at least some of the political goings on. I
was disappointed to see Zuma let of the hook - corruption is a serious
problem for South Africa and having it properly prosecuted is
important to improving our international image and restoring some
inwards investment - so I'm pleased to see the case back. I'm also,
for completely private reasons, delighted that this has caused the
dollar to jump for just the few days that I need it to - but that
wouldn't, of course, influence my judgement on the rightness or
wrongness of the case itself.
I'm generally in favour of outspoken and brave judges - if only for
their entertainment value, Judge Pickles in the UK provided tons of
material for Private Eye that comics would have found hard to invent.
Interestingly Judge Pickles had sound views on ganja, that are echoed
in the New Scientist magazine this week.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

That makes sense - if you mean that he was developing common law.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Yes. I think selective prosecution does involve a kind of violation of
human rights. And selective investigation and selective prosecution
can easily hide behind words like "allegedly".

Yes, I agree, that makes sense.

The M&G have now launched a rumour that, to scotch this, Zuma's
lawyers are going to blow the whistle on the whole scam, implicating
Mbeki and the rest. It would be an interesting development.

Bob Dubery

2009-01-24 05:22:09 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
I find it difficult to make a judgement on this one myself, actually.
From the general murkiness of the situation and people and the smoke
and fire argument [that forgets dry ice], I'm inclined to think that
Nicholson was right about at least some of the political goings on. I
was disappointed to see Zuma let of the hook - corruption is a serious
problem for South Africa and having it properly prosecuted is
important to improving our international image and restoring some
inwards investment - so I'm pleased to see the case back. I'm also,
for completely private reasons, delighted that this has caused the
dollar to jump for just the few days that I need it to - but that
wouldn't, of course, influence my judgement on the rightness or
wrongness of the case itself.

What strikes me is that Mbeki is now saying (in effect) "I told you
so." But if he was so convinced of his lack of wrong doing then why
did he go so meekly? The ANC couldn't actually force him to step down,
but he folded without any fight at all. Yet he was convinced that he'd
done no wrong? It doesn't add up.

There's more to this than meets the eye - and I think more so with
Mbeki than with Zuma.

Peter H.M. Brooks

2009-01-24 05:39:54 UTC