I object to this judgement of OVERRULE. I think that since OVERRULE is not subject to oversight, it should not be used to introduce new opinions, but rather only to affirm existing opinions (presumably implementing the judgement suggested by the appellant, or some such), or to effect a judgement in a case where it is patently clear that that judgement is uniquely appropriate (and thus there is no room for opinion). Introducing new opinions should be done using REMIT or REMAND, so that future judges have the ability to contest the opinion.
—Machiavelli
