ais523 wrote: > The precedent of CFJ 1651a (as comex mentioned in eir appeal) is that when a > judgement illustrates a lack of understanding of the issues, it should be > reassigned; this judgement instead illustrates a lack of consideration for > the arguments, but is a similar problem. If the opposing arguments are > irrelevant, I would expect a well-reasoned judgement to explain why they are > irrelevant.
Addressing this point specifically (I previously mentioned 1651 without noticing that you had already mentioned it yourself): Speaking personally, I moved to REASSIGN 1651, not just because the judge lacked understanding, but because this lack appeared to be so severe that I believed e would continue to lack understanding even if the issue were explained more carefully; in other words, I disbelieved "that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement if given a new opportunity". I do not disbelieve this wrt Wooble and 1937.
