re: #389 iossarian

Fair enough. My impression of pretty much all lawyers is that they decide what they want their conclusion to be and work backwards from there. I don’t particularly mind - in fact I think it’s what everyone does in terms of moral decisions, so why should lawyers be any different?

I only get slightly worked up about it when they go out of their way to claim they’re doing anything different, which is usually in cases of “this ruling may seem like I’m being an asshole but really the constitution is making me do it” (exhibit A of this tendency being Scalia).

I get peeved when a judge ignores pretty much anything that would argue against his predetermined conclusion and then makes it pretty damn obvious:

Judge Feldman begins in upholding La.’s marriage ban by talking about “lifestyle choices.” http://t.co/Kv3HUGqZ4u pic.twitter.com/wYIJpCE2Cw

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) September 3, 2014