The
Court emphasized that, despite being
discretionary, the decision to deny or grant a bonus
upon termination of employment should be done in a fair and reasonable manner.
In the UK and some other Commonwealth jurisdictions,
courts are empowered to award costs, on a
discretionary basis, to a defendant
upon acquittal.
Thus it will be seen by these quotations from the opinion that the
court, after stating the question it was about to decide in a manner too plain to be misunderstood, proceeded to decide it, and announced, as the opinion of the tribunal, that in organizing the judicial department of the Government in a Territory of the United States, Congress does not act under, and is not restricted by, the third article in the Constitution, and is not bound, in a Territory, to ordain and establish
courts in which the judges hold their offices during good behaviour, but may exercise the
discretionary power which a State exercises in establishing its judicial department and regulating the jurisdiction of its
courts, and may authorize the Territorial Government to establish, or may itself establish,
courts in which the judges hold their offices for a term of years only, and may vest in them judicial power
upon subjects confided to the judiciary of the United States.
I would therefore argue that by focussing on what is essentially a practical impossibility for the previous non-residential or non-custodial parent to prove his increased costs simply
upon reaching the 40 per cent threshold (as opposed to recognizing that parent's fixed and
discretionary costs of exercising access or joint custody), both the
Court and the Guidelines themselves are unfortunately perpetuating what may very well be a most unjust treatment of children in one parent's household.