Eris wrote:
On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Concurring opinions
(AI = 1.7, please)
Why?
To formally distinguish between the concepts described under the
new AFFIRM and CONCUR. For instance, Rule 2126 would revoke the
prior judge's salary on CONCUR.
Also to limit reassignment to cases where the panel thinks the prior
judge will probably get it wrong again. On second thought, this
should probably be changed to "doesn't think they will probably get
it right" (otherwise, if their expectations are 50-50, then neither
REMAND nor REASSIGN would be appropriate). Reassignment should also
be appropriate in cases of significant controversy, e.g. "thinks
their new judgement is unlikely to be generally accepted".
