On 6/15/2019 8:09 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> - I really like the idea of obiter dicta, there might be a few good ways
> to implement that.
Thinking about this a bit more, our system really requires individual
judges to set broad precedents - sticking to the narrow would really bog
down the game:
-
So a few overall thoughts here.
- I saw your call for a Motion, and mentally thought "I'll come back and
read through the arguments before supporting" then never did. Not so much
Apathy or stigma against filing, but losing track of it, in part because
all the facts weren't immediately at hand.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:56 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Would such a section become precedent just as the normal part of a
> judgment would, or would it be purely informational?
I'd say it shouldn't need to be a separate section at all. If the
comment is unavailing, then sure, tack on an sentence at
Would such a section become precedent just as the normal part of a
judgment would, or would it be purely informational?
Jason Cobb
On 6/14/19 9:54 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 01:13, omd wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM James Cook wrote:
Requiring notice and comment w
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 01:13, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM James Cook wrote:
> > Requiring notice and comment would make it a bit more complicated and
> > time-consuming to judge a CFJ, which might not make sense for simple
> > ones.
>
> Well, most simple cases shouldn't have any
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM James Cook wrote:
> Requiring notice and comment would make it a bit more complicated and
> time-consuming to judge a CFJ, which might not make sense for simple
> ones.
Well, most simple cases shouldn't have any comments submitted, and in
that case my design would
Requiring notice and comment would make it a bit more complicated and
time-consuming to judge a CFJ, which might not make sense for simple
ones. How about this:
* The judge assigned to a CFJ CAN publish a draft judgement, and is
ENCOURAGED to do so for difficult cases.
* Publishing a draft judgemen
I personally like the idea of requiring judgments to be published before
becoming binding. I think that worked out well for everyone when
Falsifian did something similar (although less formally, of course).
You mention apathy being an issue for gathering actual arguments in
response to a CFJ.
Idea: Create a Rules-defined "notice and comment" process for judgements.
Since I became active, there have been two judgements in CFJs about
minor scams I attempted (3728 and 3833).
The first one I had a minor quibble with, so I moved for
reconsideration, but nobody bothered to support it. I th
9 matches
Mail list logo
