User talk:GTBacchus/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May I post here? I think ArbCom, as the last step in the dispute resolution process, is binding. They decide how to apply principles (or whatever they do decide). What I've heard is that it is binding. I'll be interested to hear what you come up with on this one. Maybe ask an ArbCom clerk. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite welcome to post here. There's a difference between ArbCom decisions being binding in the context in which they're made, and them being binding as precedent in future cases. The former is certainly true; the latter I doubt very much. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, right. I think the word is just being used wrong, it just means they are the precedent for what you are writing at the time. I just assumed that's what it meant. Looser language filter, I guess. Needs to be changed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem in this passage is that the writer, who is using an analogy to the legal system, is thinking in terms of Anglo-American common law where judges play a part in creating laws, where the ArbCom's function is better compared to civil law, where judges are simply interpreting & applying laws -- which are created by legislators, who are either rulers or a deliberative body. In the first case, juristic precedent is closely binding & can only be overturned by a superior court or the appropriate legislative source; in the second, juristic precedent is loosely binding, & while it can be disregarded by a judge for whatever reason the justice needs to consider how this will be perceived, for a judge who appears to make foolish rulings can expect to be disciplined -- or removed. -- llywrch (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)