Jim Jewett wrote:
I'm posting this publicly because you aren't the first to feel this way, so I think an answer should be archived. [...]
Ah, thanks for caring, Jim. And for your nice explanations.
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: [...]
Why not take Guido's comment literally, "*if* you don't have it," and think about the "litmus test" he described? (Ie, think about why this proposal is unattractive.)
It's like a judge silencing a advocate by saying "It's no, and if you can't plead the other side's view now that it's over, this means you don't have what it takes to be judge". Now the competent advocate is deferential to the judge and in general won't dream he could replace the judge any more than he would ignore any judge's simple demand for silence. But he will nevertheless recognize that the test the judge proposes is one by which to recognize a competent advocate foremost, and a competent judge only subsidiarily if ever.
IOW, deciding given pros and cons isn't the same as listing them. And if courts tend to distribute the role of listing the pros, that of listing the cons, and that of deciding, to three distinct persons or parties, it's not without good reasons, imo. And... I've a "good" enough personal history of driving myself into undecidable dilemmas, thanks.
The above is what I was first tempted to reply in short to Guido, but felt it was rather OT, so I settled on a shortcut. 'nough said.