there's a lot to love about the discourse around judges. it proceeds according to endlessly-repeated mechanical catchphrases, which demonstrate, if nothing else, the compulsive rigidity with which law students are taught to replace actual ratiocination. of course, by the time they get to law school, they have already eventuated from the american system of education, for which standardization of phraseology is the ultimate truth. one of these i like is 'outside the mainstream', which is big fun. i suppose that, though a judge should decide cases without regard to their personal feelings (rather, they must employ the feelings of bowling balls, boulders, or bonobos), preferences, or, in general, their personal minds, they must be held to the standard of whatever the momentary polling might problematically sort of indicate.