On Mon, 19 May 2008, comex wrote: > I don't have time to read the rest of this message right now (I will > later), but Rule 217 has nothing to do with (in)appropriate > judgements. I believe I've mentioned that I think the appeals > judgement was, in fact, appropriate.
My point 3 is aimed squarely at your argument: > for the best > interests of the game, the prior judgement MUST CLEARLY be determined > to be inappropriate before the appeal case is reassigned or overruled, > and it has NOT. But an elaboration. I greatly contest that your assertion is in the best interests of the game for an appeals court to defer to a non-decided CFJ on appropriateness of the judgement in question. It is the very job of the appeals court to determine whether a judgement is appropriate or inappropriate. It is in the best interests of the game to let them do their work. In fact the judge of CFJ 1938 should defer to the appeals process, and if the judge of CFJ 1938 finds differently than the appeals court, the weight of precedent should be on the side of the appeals court. Otherwise, a succession of judges could each find the previous judgement inappropriate, ad infinitum. The whole purpose of appeals is to stop such ping-ponging by causing a group of three to attempt to affect a reconciliation. -Goethe
