> The task of the judge is to decide the law of the case.
I don't think that's right.
You express that as if "the law" is always clear and uncontestable. Reality is the opposite; few laws are drafted to be clear and uncontestable.
The task of the judge is to administer the case. He/she decides what evidence is admissible, what utterances by the advocates are forbidden/permissible and so on. The advocates and the judge may have three different opinions about what the law is, and so it becomes a question for the jury.
So the judge is the authority on the law concerning how cases may be conducted; but not on other legal specialties.
I don't think that's right.
You express that as if "the law" is always clear and uncontestable. Reality is the opposite; few laws are drafted to be clear and uncontestable.
The task of the judge is to administer the case. He/she decides what evidence is admissible, what utterances by the advocates are forbidden/permissible and so on. The advocates and the judge may have three different opinions about what the law is, and so it becomes a question for the jury.
So the judge is the authority on the law concerning how cases may be conducted; but not on other legal specialties.