James D. Forrester wrote:
Well, I personally have grave concerns at the concept of spreading the ground too thinly, and parcelling out cases a priori. I'm a strong believer in our current system (which is not much of a surprise, given how and by whom its form was shaped :-)), where Arbitrators are moved to write a case up, rather than handed it and told to get on with the case. This is why we don't sit en banc (and won't, until I'm/we're convinced that the benefits outweigh the disbenefits).
For those playing especial, close attention, yes, I missed the word "not" from there - that is, this should have read "we don't *not* sit en banc".
Thank you, Brad, for showing me that at least one person reads my boring prose. :-)
Yours sincerely, -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com