Back in law school — decades ago — as part of the graduation requirements, one had to write an appellate brief and then argue it before a panel of ersatz judges.  The topics and even the sides of the arguments were assigned. To save time on behalf of the law profs who were acting as judges, they assigned teams: two to argue one side, two to argue the other. So I researched the thing.  Even then, I could see that the weight of the decisions were on the other side from the one I'd been assigned.  And I felt myself reaching a conclusion that was in support of the position I'd been assigned.  I hadn't any preconceived notions — I'd never known anything about the issue or even of the deeper clash of legal theories that inspired it. Indeed, the more I looked at the whole thing, the more I felt the other side of the argument was based on some form of lunacy, something warping the language, and even something...(Read Full Post)