[quote="Beathan":1hj265ec]As you and I have discussed inworld, but not on the forums, I don't believe that two judges is enough unless the SC is set up to hear all appeals. To me, without a right to appeal, justice is impossible. If we have two judges, they would be charged with hearing each other's appeals -- and that would be harmful either to justice or to their relationship. Appeals, if not heard by the SC, should be heard by a panel of three judges. This requires either four judges (if we don't want the trial judge to hear his own appeals as part of a panel) or three judges (if we don't mind the prospect of appealing to the trial judge in the hope that the others will outvote him).
Further, I know that Fernando and others would cry foul if the only judges were Ashcroft and his RL friend. Such a captured agency is always suspect -- and a captured judiciary particularly so.[/quote:1hj265ec]
I never suggested that two judges are enough for the long-term: after all, the quota has been set at 3, and that must be respected. However, two are better than one, and, with a second judge, we might have a fresh input to the qualification process so that we can have more than two in due course.
As I already explained, appeals to the Court of Scientific Council are deliberately restricted, and for a good reason. If we want to be able to have appeals on wider grounds, we need to establish an inferior Court of Common Jurisdiction, and increase the quota of judges to four, so that, in any given case, one judge can hear the case at first instance and, if there is an appeal, three judges can hear the appeal.
I am currently writing the Code of Procedure on the basis that we have one Court of Common Jurisdiction, but I am deliberately leaving gaps for procedures (including appeals) related to inferior Courts of Common Jurisdiction so that, when and if the Chair of the Judiciary Commission decides to increase the quota of courts, I can easily fit in provisions relating to inferior courts without disrupting what else is there.
[quote:1hj265ec]I agree wholeheartedly with your notion of bounded discretion.[/quote:1hj265ec]
Then I hope that you will like my code ![Smile :-)](./images/smilies/001-happy.svg)
[quote:1hj265ec]As an American and therefore naturally litigious and more committe to the idea that law should stay out of most areas of my life, I am more skeptical of your analysis of substantive law.[/quote:1hj265ec]
I do not see what in the analysis of substantive law requiring precise and predictable rules means that law is more restrictive than substantive law that involves judicial discretion. Indeed, substantive law that involves judicial discretion is far [i:1hj265ec]more[/i:1hj265ec] invasive in that, in order to have a judicial discretion exercised in one's favour, one will on many occasions have to be brought before the courts by somebody who would like the law to intervene more than it should, and not until after a costly and uncertain process (in which you might settle, so that what would otherwise be established as your right is eroded), will it be discovered that, in your particular case at least, it does not.
[quote:1hj265ec]However, substantive law is generally the province of the RA except where common law is authorized.[/quote:1hj265ec]
Common law is authorised everywhere where the RA has not explicitly stipulated to the contrary.