On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [The change back in the great repeals of requiring consensus appeals > judgements was interesting, but ultimately I think it's (a) more > streamlined to require individual appeals member "votes" on a > judgement with a default if there's no majority and (b) better for > Agora to give each and every panel member a separate requirement to > deliver an appropriate judgment. The default of REMAND seems the > most reasonable; the original judge can directly address appellant's > comments but keep the same judgment (for the next panel if needed). > Also, takes to CotC out of choice].
Why not just get rid of the 2-support method? If all justices agree on an appropriate appeals judgement, they can all submit similar opinions.
