The purpose of the Court of Appeals is to evaluate the lower court’s application of judicial discretion. The lower court’s decision is only overturned when it is determined there has been an “abuse of discretion” - that the judge’s discretion does not follow the law as laid down.
So in this process, the Appeal Court judge has to go back and see what is on the statute books, and make their judgement on a point of law, rather than discretion. They have to follow legislation.
It would then be for the Supreme Court to decide whether that legislation was consistent, but that’s not for the Appeals.
Judges are not arbitrators of truth and a different group of judges could have came to a different conclusion or perhaps even the same conclusion but for different reasons.
If you are arguing against this fact I am not sure what to say. On the other hand, if you are arguing that this has been decided so it is the law now I will kindly point out that judges can and do get it wrong. This is also not the end, unless they deny an appeal.
This was the appeal. Judges are not arbiters, that’s why the Court of Appeals exists to hold them accountable to the law. The issue here isn’t the judiciary, its the legislation.
The High Court ruled in against the designation and the appeal court got it wrong. If the appeal court were to grant their appeal and the decision was reversed then what would you say.
At any rate, is the law really the problem or how it is applied, to which I will kindly refer back to the High Courts decision. It is clear there hasn’t been an actual escalation beyond a couple instances out of hundreds. This designation made no sense from the start and was politically motivated.
Expecting a bunch of corrupt politicians to fix this through a rewrite of the law is a little much. They just need to not apply it improperly. A legislative solution may work, but it is not necessary.
This problem could have been solved by the government not appealing in the first place. As I stated before this is a complete breakdown of governance and judgement unless you take into account the government trying to cover up a genocide. Then perhaps this all makes sense.
Couldn’t have
The purpose of the Court of Appeals is to evaluate the lower court’s application of judicial discretion. The lower court’s decision is only overturned when it is determined there has been an “abuse of discretion” - that the judge’s discretion does not follow the law as laid down.
So in this process, the Appeal Court judge has to go back and see what is on the statute books, and make their judgement on a point of law, rather than discretion. They have to follow legislation.
It would then be for the Supreme Court to decide whether that legislation was consistent, but that’s not for the Appeals.
Judges are not arbitrators of truth and a different group of judges could have came to a different conclusion or perhaps even the same conclusion but for different reasons.
If you are arguing against this fact I am not sure what to say. On the other hand, if you are arguing that this has been decided so it is the law now I will kindly point out that judges can and do get it wrong. This is also not the end, unless they deny an appeal.
This was the appeal. Judges are not arbiters, that’s why the Court of Appeals exists to hold them accountable to the law. The issue here isn’t the judiciary, its the legislation.
The High Court ruled in against the designation and the appeal court got it wrong. If the appeal court were to grant their appeal and the decision was reversed then what would you say.
At any rate, is the law really the problem or how it is applied, to which I will kindly refer back to the High Courts decision. It is clear there hasn’t been an actual escalation beyond a couple instances out of hundreds. This designation made no sense from the start and was politically motivated.
Expecting a bunch of corrupt politicians to fix this through a rewrite of the law is a little much. They just need to not apply it improperly. A legislative solution may work, but it is not necessary.
This problem could have been solved by the government not appealing in the first place. As I stated before this is a complete breakdown of governance and judgement unless you take into account the government trying to cover up a genocide. Then perhaps this all makes sense.