Legislators, We Can Barely Bear to "Watch"!

After observing the Legislative Yuan's review of nominees for the President, Vice President, and four-year-term Justices of the Judicial Yuan over three consecutive days, the "Legislative Yuan Observation Team of the Civil Alliance for Monitoring Grand Justice Nominees" expressed disappointment with the overall performance of the legislators. Summarizing the review performance from September 8th to 10th, observer and JRF CEO Lin Ching-p'ing stated: "There is too much political rhetoric from legislators and too little professional review. With too few high-standard questions, it is naturally difficult to gauge the constitutional values of the Grand Justice nominees." Furthermore, Lin Ching-p'ing noted that many legislators spent most of their time expressing their political stances or impressions of the judiciary, turning the session into a "national affairs forum" rather than a review of nominees. To the observation team composed of professors and lawyers, the professional standard of the legislators was truly painful to witness. Below are the specific observation opinions of the team for today (the 10th):

1. Regarding the overall performance of each party caucus today, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) performed better, the Kuomintang (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) performed comparably, and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) had no members assigned to questioning time, leaving no basis for evaluation.
2. Looking at the individual performance of legislators from various parties, Legislator Lin Chin-hsing (DPP), Legislator Huang I-chiao (PFP), and Legislator You Ch'ing (DPP) were rated by the observation team as above average in both questioning attitude and professional depth. Conversely, Legislator Wei Ming-ku (DPP) overemphasized national identity and even asked off-topic questions such as "Are judicial officers superior or military judicial officers superior?", earning a poor evaluation from the team. Additionally, Legislator Shen Chih-hui (PFP) used forty oversimplified true-or-false questions, demanding that the six four-year-term Grand Justice nominees individually state their approval or opposition. This review method was unanimously rated by the observation team as "low-standard," "grandstanding," and "severely humiliating to the Grand Justice nominees." In this regard, observer and Taipei Bar Association Administrative Law Committee Chairperson Li Yuan-te further explained: "Attempting to categorize all constitutional issues with a simplistic dichotomy not only fails to test the legal insights of the Grand Justice nominees, but is also extremely dangerous."
3. Finally, the Legislative Yuan Observation Team of the Civil Alliance for Monitoring Grand Justice Nominees encourages legislators speaking in the future to step up their game, as the average review standard over the past few days has made the observation team unable to bear "watching" any longer!

Observation Team Member List for September 10

Taiwan Bar Association　Attorney Chang Shih-hsing
Taipei Bar Association　Attorney Yu Kai-hsiung, Attorney Nan Hsueh-chen, Attorney Li Yuan-te
Judicial Reform Foundation　Attorney Fu Yu-chang, Attorney Ch'en Mei-t'ung, Attorney Yu Po-hsiang, Attorney Lin Ching-p'ing