Can judges be compelled to justify themselves?
<p>As noted <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/27020/10">here</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Sometimes a judge simply enters a verdict with no real substantive
  explanation whatsoever, despite the fact that a judge is supposed to
  write an opinion making the findings of fact and reaching the
  conclusions of law necessary to support the verdict.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>My vague understanding of appellate law is that a timely notice of appeal <em>compels</em> a judge to make a written answer containing those findings.  Is that correct?</p>

<p>Are there practical reasons that the appeals process can't or shouldn't be used to elicit proper support of judicial verdicts?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>My vague understanding of appellate law is that a timely notice of
  appeal compels a judge to make a written answer containing those
  findings. Is that correct?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. A trial court is generally divested of jurisdiction to take any further action when a notice of appeal is filed.</p>

<p>The general rule is that a trial court ruling may be upheld for any reason supported by the record, even if that is not the reason articulated by the trial court judge. Another general rule is that when the parties make legal arguments, orally or in writing, and the court makes no conclusions of law, the court is presumed to have adopted the conclusions of law advanced by the prevailing party if that is consistent with the court's ultimate resolution of the case. But, particularly in equity and in cases where a statute requires it, a decision can be vacated and remanded if the judge does not articulate an adequate basis for the decision to allow meaningful appellate review.</p>

appeal judging