Weak

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Yeah, AD can be annoying, and an obvious troll sometimes. I wish he said what he meant more often.

You all knew that when you asked him to be a CpI judge.

More recently I've mostly seen government members explode when he voiced concerns about the government or the state of Talossa. Sometimes valid, sometimes less so, but either gets the same reaction.

The wiki edit was somewhat petty, but also rather benign. It's a very weak excuse.

What worries me most is how groupthink in Talossa has become almost as bad, if not worse, than in the pre-reunision RUMP days. Apparently only those who don't criticise the government are allowed to be judges.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Another opportunity for humility has been wasted. Where an olive branch or some constructive sentences would have sufficed, you chose antagonistic and agitative rhetoric.

That rhetoric has no place in a court of law.

This is disgusting btw.

If you offered me a job, put me through an extensive senate vetting procedure, concluded that I was right for the job, and then only after the elections had passed suddenly decided based on some vague reasoning. I'd be upset. The arrogance of immediately demanding humility and expecting an olive branch is breathtaking.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

As I have yet to be appointed as Túischac'h, I agree, there is no need for further comment after this. It feels very much a political menover rather than for anything directly what AD has done to warrant it.

Another opportunity for humility has been wasted. Where an olive branch or some constructive sentences would have sufficed, you chose antagonistic and agitative rhetoric.

That rhetoric has no place in a court of law.

This is disgusting btw.

If you offered me a job, put me through an extensive senate vetting procedure, concluded that I was right for the job, and then only after the elections had passed suddenly decided based on some vague reasoning. I'd be upset. The arrogance of immediately demanding humility and expecting an olive branch is breathtaking.

[Viteu]

Yeah, AD can be annoying, and an obvious troll sometimes. I wish he said what he meant more often.

You all knew that when you asked him to be a CpI judge.

More recently I've mostly seen government members explode when he voiced concerns about the government or the state of Talossa. Sometimes valid, sometimes less so, but either gets the same reaction.

The wiki edit was somewhat petty, but also rather benign. It's a very weak excuse.

What worries me most is how groupthink in Talossa has become almost as bad, if not worse, than in the pre-reunision RUMP days. Apparently only those who don't criticise the government are allowed to be judges.

What I find particularly weak is the different standards to which you hold people.  I was put through the ringer, and likely still have some watching, to ensure that I behaved when I was only nominated.  I can only imagine the outrage you and others would have put forth if I even remotely suggested doing something like the so-called benign wiki changes.

AD was not put through an extensive vetting process.  His was, much like your post, weak sauce compared to what I went through. 
I've kept my promise to stay out of politics, but I made no promise to stay out of Wittenberg. I would like to see Talossa, and people like you, Glüc, apply the same standard across the board. AD has not changed an iota of behavior knowing that he may sit on the CpI.

In fact, he has doubled down his efforts to annoy and harass. His antics with the Wiki imply heavily that he would use his position on the Cort to embarrass the FreeDems or any party sitting opposite his political allies given the opportunity. The fact that you blithely ignore this speaks to your own weakness. You think you're being clever by using words like groupthink, but I outwardly question if you know what that is, or something you just learned last week in your sociology 101 course.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Yeah, AD can be annoying, and an obvious troll sometimes. I wish he said what he meant more often.

You all knew that when you asked him to be a CpI judge.

More recently I've mostly seen government members explode when he voiced concerns about the government or the state of Talossa. Sometimes valid, sometimes less so, but either gets the same reaction.

The wiki edit was somewhat petty, but also rather benign. It's a very weak excuse.

What worries me most is how groupthink in Talossa has become almost as bad, if not worse, than in the pre-reunision RUMP days. Apparently only those who don't criticise the government are allowed to be judges.

What I find particularly weak is the different standards to which you hold people.  I was put through the ringer, and likely still have some watching, to ensure that I behaved when I was only nominated.  I can only imagine the outrage you and others would have put forth if I even remotely suggested doing something like the so-called benign wiki changes.

AD was not put through an extensive vetting process.  His was, much like your post, weak sauce compared to what I went through. 
I've kept my promise to stay out of politics, but I made no promise to stay out of Wittenberg. I would like to see Talossa, and people like you, Glüc, apply the same standard across the board. AD has not changed an iota of behavior knowing that he may sit on the CpI.

In fact, he has doubled down his efforts to annoy and harass. His antics with the Wiki imply heavily that he would use his position on the Cort to embarrass the FreeDems or any party sitting opposite his political allies given the opportunity. The fact that you blithely ignore this speaks to your own weakness. You think you're being clever by using words like groupthink, but I outwardly question if you know what that is, or something you just learned last week in your sociology 101 course.

I dont remember ever raising any objection to you becoming CpI justice.

You have contributed a lot less and done a lot worse than AD. This was true both when you were both in the RUMP and when you were on opposing sides. The constant abuse of Epic and me combined with your inability to take any criticism are the main reason being in the coalition during the 51st Cosa term was hell for me and one of the reasons I left politics.

Yeah, your behaviour change was impressive and so was your vetting. No doubt about that, but dont talk to me about applying double standards. I don't object to you being in the CpI, but I wouldnt need any double standards to do so.

[Viteu]

Yeah, AD can be annoying, and an obvious troll sometimes. I wish he said what he meant more often.

You all knew that when you asked him to be a CpI judge.

More recently I've mostly seen government members explode when he voiced concerns about the government or the state of Talossa. Sometimes valid, sometimes less so, but either gets the same reaction.

The wiki edit was somewhat petty, but also rather benign. It's a very weak excuse.

What worries me most is how groupthink in Talossa has become almost as bad, if not worse, than in the pre-reunision RUMP days. Apparently only those who don't criticise the government are allowed to be judges.

What I find particularly weak is the different standards to which you hold people.  I was put through the ringer, and likely still have some watching, to ensure that I behaved when I was only nominated.  I can only imagine the outrage you and others would have put forth if I even remotely suggested doing something like the so-called benign wiki changes.

AD was not put through an extensive vetting process.  His was, much like your post, weak sauce compared to what I went through. 
I've kept my promise to stay out of politics, but I made no promise to stay out of Wittenberg. I would like to see Talossa, and people like you, Glüc, apply the same standard across the board. AD has not changed an iota of behavior knowing that he may sit on the CpI.

In fact, he has doubled down his efforts to annoy and harass. His antics with the Wiki imply heavily that he would use his position on the Cort to embarrass the FreeDems or any party sitting opposite his political allies given the opportunity. The fact that you blithely ignore this speaks to your own weakness. You think you're being clever by using words like groupthink, but I outwardly question if you know what that is, or something you just learned last week in your sociology 101 course.

I dont remember ever raising any objection to you becoming CpI justice.

You have contributed a lot less and done a lot worse than AD. This was true both when you were both in the RUMP and when you were on opposing sides. The constant abuse of Epic combined with your inability to take any criticism are the main reason being in the coalition during the 51st Cosa term was hell for me and one of the reasons I left politics.

Yeah, your behaviour change was impressive and so was your vetting. No doubt about that, but dont talk to me about applying double standards. I don't object to you being in the CpI, but I wouldnt need any double standards to do so.

Your revisionism is astonishing. You still apply double standards and now you're just projecting. It's weak. 

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Apparently only those who don't criticise the government are allowed to be judges.

Do you want to be a Judge? I think you'd be qualified.

As I say, I didn't support the Cabinet withdrawing the nom. But it is sheer slander to say that this is "punishing political dissent". I've been saying for years that AD drives people up the wall not because of his political positions, but by his behaviour, tone, and lack of respect for others. Other people just can't see this. They just don't see that AD does anything wrong with the way he expresses his opinions, or that people have good reason to be upset by it. In fact, I believed that - just like V - if AD were on the Cort he would no doubt clean up his act and be more careful in how he expressed himself.

If people in Talossa honestly, honestly see nothing wrong with how AD conducts himself - and they can only believe that he's being picked on because he opposes the Government - then it makes me angry, because there's nothing I can do to persuade those people otherwise. The fact that this was a collective cabinet decision, in which I was a minority, should show everyone that this is not just personal beef with myself. AD alienated other people..

A final note: I sought the advice of the Leader of the Opposition when Cabinet was making this decision. He expressed continued support for AD's nom, and I communicated that to Cabinet. I will fistfight anyone who suggests personal impropriety in this decision, and I may well mean that literally.

[Açafat del Val]

Spoken by utter childishness.

A person seeking such a powerful position as Uppermost Cort judge should not, and should never, behave as AD has done. I voted in committee to advance his nomination, because I believed at that time that a second chance was earned, much like another nominee had earned months prior. That second chance was slowly, surely, and definitively eroded by his own actions over the months after that committee report was made.

It is total folly to conflate the Government's collective decision with personality politics. What is truly arrogant and astonishing is not the Government's withdrawal of its support, but the guffawing and offense about that withdrawal.

Let me lay this down clearly: Unless you're Brett Kavanaugh, you don't get to be considered for a judicial appointment and then insult, berate, humiliate, or attack good-working and well-meaning colleagues. That's not how the world works, or should ever work. AD's response to the Government's decision was exactly the sort of behavior which caused the Government to change its mind: a man who wants the office, deserves the office, and would serve the office well does not retort to ad hominem rhetoric, least of all when there is an opportunity for a mea culpa.

No one has to be perfect; they just have to treat people with respect and want to improve themself.

If you don't get that, then it must be because you've never had to provide for a family-- or, for that matter, hold a position of actual leadership.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I can't speak to what you intended with the comparison or to whatever bets have been laid on this over at your party's Facebook group. I find the comparison fairly offensive, however it was meant.

Like I said, this turn of events is not very surprising.

[Açafat del Val]

Apparently only those who don't criticise the government are allowed to be judges.

Do you want to be a Judge? I think you'd be qualified.

I echo this.  If you are interested in undergoing a public vetting, as the previous two nominees, then please say so (or send a PM). I do not doubt that the Senate would willingly take up another nomination hearing for you.

[esbornatfiglheu]

For myself, when the nomination was first published I figured, "Yeah, sure."  However, during the hearings I just couldn't get behind it.  It seemed like he didn't even want the job.  So I suggested the govt. look elsewhere.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

For myself, when the nomination was first published I figured, "Yeah, sure."  However, during the hearings I just couldn't get behind it.  It seemed like he didn't even want the job.  So I suggested the govt. look elsewhere.

It's true, I didn't seek out the job and I will be content no matter which way this goes. I have no particular ambitions to serve on the court, although I do intend to do a good job if placed there. Practicing law has been one of my favorite things about being in this country, and I'm sure that would be the same on the other side of the bench, too. But I have never pursued it, and regard it more as an opportunity for service than an advancement in a career. It's an honor to serve on the court, not a prize. If that doesn't seem like an appropriate attitude to you, I can understand why you would want to shift your position, and I respect it.

[Açafat del Val]

I am just going to leave this here...

Respectfully, there is a lot of assumption going on there.

Speaking formally in my capacity as the Attorney-General: I did not make this decision alone, nor singlehandedly. I made the announcement on behalf of the entire Government, who decidedly collectively to withdraw our support. It is plainly incorrect to say that I had or ever had a goal of "keeping AD off the bench"; indeed, I voted for him during the committee process.

Now, speaking for myself only: I understand and appreciate why my response seemed pompous, but that mistakes my perspective. Undoubtedly, if someone wants to reduce this entire affair to personality politics and tribalism, then it would look like I am sitting on a haughty throne and sneering down from my high place. On the other hand, if someone expects a certain decorum from a judge of law, then my response makes sense. You'll note how eager AD was to mention the Guy Incognito court case, without the dignity of context, because it benefitted the perceptions that he wants to create (or tell himself): I wonder if we should want someone to sit on the bench who might so enjoy ridiculing others?

My point is this: A court of law is supposed to be a holy place, where justice and truth reign above all else. However, that state of being requires an implicit trust from the public that justice and truth will be found and respected. As soon as a defendant, complainant, attorney, etc. feels in their gut that the presiding judge has bias, has unruly mannerisms, has a disrespectful affect - as soon as they feel that justice won't be served - then the entire objective falls apart. Justice cannot be done without trust in the process. And if AD reacts to this announcement how he did, not to mention all the events preceding it, then how will he react when fellow citizens seek justice from him?

To be a judge is to reflect a certain attitude and represent certain values. That's what it means to be a lawyer. AD's behavior proves that he lacks both the attitude and the values, and that he might well erode the public's trust in our courts.

[Éovart Andrinescù]

You could at least do AD the courtesy of committing to your attacks instead of walking them back and explaining them away.

"A rejected nominee shouldn't look like this [picture of Kavanaugh]"
—Acafat, with the subtle implication that AD is not only upset about having his nomination pulled (any other picture of someone with a childish/upset expression would have sufficed—this image was chosen), but that he is, somehow, morally on the same level as Kavanaugh. He has some right to take offence to that.

"Well known that AD likes beer"
—Miestra, implying AD is comparable to Kavanaugh in some way.

The Free Dems want it both ways. They want to appeal to decorum and play the victim, all while playing ball with AD's "rough-house politics" and throwing around brash remarks, accusing people of having narcissistic personality disorders and the like. FDT is the party of glass jaws living in glass houses.

[Açafat del Val]

Nope, no walking back here, friend.

Is this when I say something snide about the LCC's affinity for strawman or red herring fallacies? Or do you get a copout by saying that you don't represent Talossa's only opposition party?

AD is not a victim. He's acted unbecomingly, continues to act unbecomingly, and admitted anyways that he's satisfied to not have the job.

If he can't handle an apt comparison to his own childishness, then he shouldn't play ball. Something about don't cook in the kitchen if you can't handle the heat.