On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote: > On 06/15/2011 12:13 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > > wrote: > >> I intend to deputize to Rotate the Bench. > >> > >> Hmm. > >> > >> Proto-CFJ for discussion (not CFJ for obvious reasons - need a justiciar!): > >> > >> It is possible to deputize to Rotate The Bench. > > > > CFJ 1776 states (using dated terminology) that it is possible to > > deputise for the purpose of rotating the bench as long as there is > > indeed a practical requirement to rotate the bench. > > > > H. Murphy, would it be possible to somehow annotate CFJ 1776 in the > > database so that doing a statement text search for "rotating the > > bench" would make it show up? > > > > —Tanner L. Swett > > The annotation for CFJ 1776 in the FLR, attached to the rule on > deputisation, is worded much more generally than that. It would be > prohibitive to include keywords for every possible office-required activity.
Yep! Though it would be worth adding to that annotation the part about "if an officer can be found guilty for not doing it, it's a requirement".
