On 5/22/23 15:25, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to solve
> a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
> (...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
> applying my own personal opinion.
>
> But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my reasons
> for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could become
> customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in that
> way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if it
> doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for delivering
> judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule 911
> and Moots exist.If judges always or often judge based on what the majority wants, a lot of the point of a judiciary separate from the proposal system is diminished. If a judge fully and truly believes the outcome of a case is the opposite of what the majority wants (after hearing all the arguments), then, in my view, they should judge that way. If they can make a convincing argument then all is well, and if they can't then the majority has motions and moots to deal with it. If the majority is wrong, let them be wrong, but make them work for it. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
