Why is the word "bench" used specifically to describe a judge or the judicial process?
120854
What is the origin of the expression "legislate from the bench" used to describe "judicial activism" in the United States?  Do judges have different seating arrangements from congressmen?  In more detail, do legislators (congressmen) sit on different appliances as compared to judges? Why does "bench" imply the judicial branch more than the legislative branch? Do judges sit on benches while senators sit on armchairs?  In other words, what is the origin of describing the judges as sitting specifically on a "bench"? I assume what they sit on is padded just as much as your typical senator's seat.    Note1: @TimLymington pointed out in a comment that what is relevant is the length of the bench, with several judges sitting on it.  Meanwhile, members of other branches of goverment usually sit on individual seats.  This seems to be the explanation of the expression dating back to the 13th century.   TimLymington can format his comment as an answer so I could "accept" it.  Note 2: the comment at wiki that the bench is where the judges sit appears to be incorrect.  Rather the "bench" seems to refer to the table where they work.  Note 3. When a judge tells a barrister to "approach the bench", as in this post:  he typically does not mean to imply that the barrister should aim for the judge's seat, but rather the table/desk/bench.
88079
I come up with the sentence &quot;I don't like him as a pianist, but as a judge&quot; when considering &quot;him&quot; as a pianist. But can this sentence have two meanings when &quot;as a pianist&quot; refer to both &quot;I&quot; and &quot;him&quot;? Or can it only refer to the closer &quot;him&quot;?
117544
I may not be using the right terms for what I'm asking, but for example, "Cartesian" is an adjective derived from Descartes' name, and "Dickensian" is an adjective derived from Charles Dickens' name, both of which are used to describe things that are related to the particular person they refer to. Are there rules (even loose rules) for how such adjectives are created, or is it more of an art than a science? Is there a special name for such adjectives (like a "demonym" is a noun for people from a particular place)?  Thank you in advance for any help. Please let me know if you'd like any clarification of what I'm asking!  Edit  And if there aren't rules for this, what are the most common suffixes used, and what are examples of such suffixes?
69112
Here's a standard English sentence:     The folder which is missing from the principal's office contained the answers to today's exam.   (Separate question, discussed elsewhere I'm sure, whether it should really be "which" or "that".)  But simpler is usually better, so I would actually just write:     The folder missing from the principal's office ...   But my question is: I have seen legal statements which would write:     The folder, which folder is missing from the principal's office, contained ...   Assuming that the writer is actually correct in thinking that s/he's adding some value by repeating "folder" after the "which", what value is s/he adding?
16807
This question may seem to be very simple, but something I get confused whenever I want to speak.  I read a book entitled "re-start your English", and saw a sentence.     This is a leg. It is part of your body.      This is a neck. It is 'a' part of your body.   Why didn't they use 'a' in the first sentence? And why did they use one in the second one?  I'm not a native, so I hope you will please understand,  even if there's something awkward about my question.
86426
The title says it all (I'm referring to the case, when writing for example an article to be published or something similar - something where the writing itself should also be of quality).  Example: "Let $A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n$ be subsets of a set $L$ and $f:L\rightarrow L$. Then define $B=\cup_{i=0}^n A_i$ and $C=\cup_{i=1}^{\infty} f^i (A_2)$, where $f^i$ is $f$ iterated with itself $i$ times."  So (in this example), would it be a problem to use $i$ twice as an index variable the ranges over different sets ? Or is it ok to think of $i$ as being define like a (lets do a computer-science analogy) "local variable", that is only used to create the object "in" which it is defined ($B$ for example) and after the object is created, the variable is "freed" again (so it can be used again to define $C$) ?  If it is NOT okay to do that, when is it allowed to use the same symbol again, after its first use ? After half a page ? After two pages ? In index-heavy proofs one would very soon have finished all letters commonly used as indices, of one would always have to use a different letter. And indexing sets with letters like $x$ or $f$ seems even worse style to me (ok, maybe there are areas in math, in which this would be common practice, but I don't know any).
52331
I am looking for a stronger word than "discrimination", which somehow remains ambiguous because of its multiple meanings. I am especially interested in referring to discrimination in the sense of partiality and prejudice towards certain demographic categories. The word "discrimination" could be used in combination with an adjective such as "racial", but again that would be to specific, because it would omit discrimination based on other categories such as religion, gender or culture. What I would require is a word describing the thought process by which one purposely, unfairly and hatefully excludes an entire population from courtesy and tolerance one would apply to oneself.
120387
I feel the need to refer to this concept regularly in quite different situations, so I feel that there probably is a word.  Example 1 (silly engineering one)  I want to know how fast my paper aeroplane flies so I attach my smart phone to it with an app to measure speed. The plane does not fly any more because the measurement device is far too heavy; the plane's behaviour is altered by the measurement device.  The method suffered from X.  Example 2 (human one)  I want to know what people think about something at work so I ask a question. If I ask the same question but follow it with "I want to tell the management what people think" then in some situations this is likely to affect how people answer. The questioning suffers from X.
87421
"Sides" can be used to describe positioning relative to the left or right of an object. Is there a corresponding word that has the same meaning for the top or bottom of an object?  For example, if I say "side padding," it's pretty clear that I'm talking about padding from the left and right edge. I want to be able to say the same thing about the top and bottom edge.
48727
With proper nouns, we don't use the except for river names, newspaper names, etc.  I want to know why we use the with White House. I mean, under which rule can we categorize it? What could other similar examples for that rule be?
106569
I'm searching for a word to describe a person who cannot understand that there may be different perspectives. I initially thought of single-minded, but that pertains to determination.  One example of several perspectives could be the difference between a process and an action. Please assume that a process is composed of several actions. A process may be composed of other processes, but these processes would be actions in this greater process.  If you accept my definitions, then depending on the holistic or granularity level, we may consider something a process or an action, depending on whether we are considering its parts or how it's part of a greater thing.  A person may have trouble understanding that it's not true or false that something is a process or an action, it depends on how it relates with everything else from the perspective that we take. From one perspective it's a process, from another it's an action. For some people, things seem to be in one and only one absolute way, which is wrong, IMHO.   Is there a word to describe this kind of problem that some people seem to have?  PD: It's like . But I don't think most people know the word monist.  Here are some other, superficially similar terms that actually mean something quite different. A racist is (approximately) someone who considers other races inferior. A narrow-minded person considers other perspectives wrong or irrelevant, or may not consider them, but is aware that they exist. A monist would not even understand that there is more than one race or multiple perspectives; there is simply one reality, and that's it.
42914
I wrote this sentence     However, if the user defines each rule (regarding/according to/in) a specific context, the algorithm will take the context into account before deciding to remove such elements.   Which are applicable and what would be the implication of each?  I myself think "regarding" means "about" and is not proper here, but I doubt between "according to" and "in", because "in" is a collocation for "context".
21916
I have wondered from time to time about the phrase "attorney at law." Are there other kinds of attorneys? Attorneys at arms? If not, why do we specify?
54046
What are some practical uses for the ""?  The "" example commonly shown just isn't a convincing example to me.
52580
While I know technically the English language has a distinction because when there's a conflict between the possessive form and a contraction, the contraction wins. That is:   Its is the possessive form of it—and this will presumably be followed by some form of noun spec or something. It's is short for "it is" or "it has" (as in "it's been years since...").   The rule of thumb I use to remember this is that it follows the same pattern as whose and who's, for which the correct use is much more obvious.  While technically I see why there's (ha ha) a distinction, I can't think of any case why it really needs to be there, because for every use of either construct, the meaning intended is usually (if not always) obvious from context. Case in point: many questions and answers written on the Stack Exchange network are written incorrectly, yet nobody notices or cares. (Usually in my case, I default to "it's" then realize I screwed up)  As a single word, I could see why it'd be ambiguous, but I don't see why in typical prose it would matter.  Is there a specific reason for this in earlier dialects of English, or specific cases where choosing the incorrect form leads to lack of understanding of a particular sentence?
96049
Two parties are trying to resolve some dispute that involves interest of both. Sometimes it's hard for them to reach an agreement on a fair basis. This is typically when another party who has no interest involved and no bias towards either party comes into play in order to settle the dispute between the two conflicting parties. The term "third party" seems being used quite often. I would also call it a "middle-standing" party or we could say this party is neutral.  These terms seem NOT formal enough to me though. I'd like to see if anybody can come up with a better one.
3037
Example:     Just because he does not say very much is no reason to sell him short. Actually, he's a profound thinker and a most talented writer. People tend to underestimate him and not give him the credit he deserves because they think he's shy.   How do you understand it grammatically? If it means the same thing as the most talented writer, then what's the difference?