On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > This morning, I find myself more swayed by pro- than anti-. That > changes each time I think about it. The only thing I'm *sure* of is > that I think a judge needs to come right out and say they are weighing > these closely-balanced sides on the interest of the game, and perhaps, as > much as anything, commit emself to a subjective opinion rather than > looking for a final piece of hard logic. It may be that we admit > that this decision relies solely on the luck of assignment and mood > of the judge. We'll also have to admit that in such a case, an Appeals > Court that constantly REMANDS would only switch back and forth between > subjective judgements; thus an AFFIRM at some point (perhaps not this > one) would be necessary even if the appeals court doesn't wholly agree.
For the record, I agree that this is necessarily subjective. As long as the final opinion on this case is well-thought-out, I don't intend to appeal it even if I disagree with its logic. Though, as Murphy as an AFO member and the Assessor has necessarily taken part in the process (albeit as the scam's enemy, I guess, considering the AFO's deregistration), I wouldn't mind a REASSIGN just for impartiality.
