At the heart of this appeal are two potentially competing tensions: (1) the adversarial system, which relies on the parties to frame the issues on appeal, and reserves the role of
neutral arbiter for the courts; and (2) the need for an appellate court to intervene in order to prevent an injustice.
Not exact matches
These courts are supposed to be
neutral arbiters — a way to correct
for the power imbalance that existed prior to NAFTA, when Canada and Mexico had to take their grievances to US courts.
The bet would also need a
neutral arbiter — we propose,
for example, the director of the Hadley Centre, home of the data used by Keenlyside et al., or a committee of
neutral colleagues.
Here's the main problem: unlike most civil cases, in guardianship proceedings the judge plays a dual role: he or she serves both as
neutral arbiter and as the person ultimately responsible
for protecting the ward's best interests.
What I see happening here is a well - intentioned judge trying to balance the somewhat conflicting demands placed upon him in a guardianship proceeding, where he's expected to serve both as
neutral arbiter and as the person ultimately responsible
for protecting the ward's best interests.
Rather than keeping a
neutral ledger that lacks discrimination, he's becoming the
arbiter of smart contracts and a benevolent dictator
for Ethereum.