On Nov 18, 2007 2:10 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
In some cases that's fine, but it also leaves judges open to losing their salaries due to minor nitpicking. > 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". My preference is to leave judges flexibility where reasonable, although I can't think of any good reason that a panel might prefer REASSIGN where REMAND is appropriate. -root
