[WikiEN-l] Worthy admins? (was "The userbox fad")

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 1/5/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>On 1/5/06, Garion1000 <garion1000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Many supreme courts or international courts do work like this though. They
>>>consist for instance totally of 10 judges but some cases are just taken up
>>>by three of them. I haven't encountered any inconsistencies there.
>>>Although
>>>I do not know how they solved it. Probably because they have and use a
>>>good
>>>bureaucratic system.
>>>      
>>>
>>Two points:
>>
>>(1) WP:ISNOT a bureaucracy. :-) I had to get that out there.
>>(2) I'm probably more interested in the lower-court system since I'm from
>>the United States and I'm modelling this after the Supremer Court. My main
>>point, however, is that while increasing the number of Arbs may improve the
>>situation, it couldn't improve the situtation any more than a lower court
>>system would also- but the lower court system would have fewer possible
>>drawbacks.
>>
>>Ryan
>>    
>>
>Regarding number 2, this is how the US appeals courts work.  "In a
>court of appeals, an appeal is almost always heard by a "panel" of
>three of the court's judges, although there are instances where all of
>the judges will participate in an en banc hearing."  [[United States
>court of appeals]]
>
>I have no idea what the advantages/disadvantages are supposed to be.
>  
>
En banc hearings are important when the court anticipates that the 
decision may set important legal precedents.

An important distinction between lower and appelate courts is that 
appeals courts do not normally hear new evidence.  They are primaily 
interested in legal interpretation.

Ec