BobTHJ wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 13:34, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> comex wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> I could record this in the database as three separate assigns (similar >>>> to appeal panels, a holdover from the old justices / appellate judges >>>> system) but I'm concerned that it might confuse some of the scripts. I >>>> recommend the following instead (the case can still be appealed): >>> I have to say I disagree with preventing interesting rule changes due >>> to arbitrary technical limitations...can't you fix the scripts? >> I could, but I also think requiring a panel for all such cases is >> overkill; not all of them will be controversial, and (again) those >> that are can be unilaterally appealed by any party. >> > To save the work of re-programming scripts we could just escalate > these cases to the Appeals court directly.
That would just require a different sort of reprogramming. (Or, at minimum, dummy placeholder entries at the lower-court level.) And, again, overkill for low-controversy cases.
