What the court is engaged in is an extreme case of motivated reasoning, sinking almost to the level of what the legal profession calls parallel construction. In

What the court is engaged in is an extreme case of motivated reasoning, sinking almost to the level of what the legal profession calls parallel construction. In fact there were many logically consistent arguments for this decision, and many logically consistent arguments for the dissent. They're all right there, both sides, in the text. It's why dissents are written and preserved. Often a point raised in a dissent for one case becomes more important than the ruling itself. Anyone who gets too carried away with the logical consistency of the majority opinion is ignoring the record. Which brings us to the terms I introduced earlier. When contradictory evidence or arguments are present, it's easy to pick those that support your predetermined position and ignore those that don't. It's nothing to be proud of, and in fact it's usually considered shameful. In formal debate it's a sure route to an ignominious loss. Parallel construction is the equivalent in the legal world, and equally condemned. It's when the prosecution comes into possession of evidence illegally, and then makes up an alternative provenance or reasoning because admitting the truth would get their case summarily thrown out. This is what the conservative wing of the supreme court has been doing. They're picking and choosing, highlighting pretty dubious arguments and ignoring those which its own principles (e.g. judicial restraint, stare decisis) would give more weight. It's even more despicable for them than it is for prosecutors. Anyone who praises the "consistency" of this decision is at best falling for the trick, or just as often repeating it themselves because the decision supports a view they held long before they ever heard of this case. This discussion is full of such motivated reasoning, as most here are, and I'm pretty sure that's the cause of parent's contempt. If this is truly supposed to be hacker news full of curious people and not just another political rag disguised as a tech-news site, you all need to do better.