On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, comex wrote: > 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.
It's not exactly two support, it's unanimous support. It's a generalization for different types of judicial panel actions should they become relevant (e.g. if there's a range of fines for a sentence, better to have one message with/support than a wide range of judgements, or if a specific set of Orders is to be issued-ordering testimony- etc). This way the panel can always send any type of message with unanimous consent if necessary. -Goethe
