Interpreting the Law. Expert Courts and Appeals to Referendums
At present, a given court or judge may handle cases ranging from family affairs and criminal law to citizenship, banking, environmental issues, industrial patents, copyrights, computer fraud etc. Clearly, it is beyond any one individual to make knowledgeable judgements in all of these areas. This shortcoming becomes acute when each field is highly technical and requires specialized knowledge.
In the Direct Democracy model, the Judiciary consists of expert courts specializing in various areas of jurisdiction. There is a court that is expert in finance laws; another court is expert in technology, another in family law, etc.
The Judiciary interprets the law and arbitrates among citizens in disputes between individual citizens and an Expert Agency, and in disputes among the various Expert Agencies, Policy Juries, and Public Ombudsmen.
Decisions of the Expert Courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is composed of emeritus Expert Justices and emeritus Chiefs of Expert Agencies and the Chief Justices of the Expert Courts. When needed, these members are constituted into Expert Panels to deal with issues that require specialized knowledge. Decisions of the Supreme Court can be appealed through proposals for referendums and polls to the ultimate authority, the voting public.
Decisions of the Supreme Court can be appealed to the ultimate authority of the voting public. Such appeals must be approved by the Executive Council, and presented to the public as one of the referendums or polls that the Executive Council requests each year. Evidently, only cases of general principle will reach this level of authority and public involvement.