Even judges committed to disinterested interpretation disagree sharply about how to interpret legal texts.

Evidence

Of course, acceptance of interpretive fidelity as the primary criterion does not eliminate disputes. Judges disagree, often vehemently, about how to interpret constitutional provisions and other legal texts. Commentators constantly debate whether courts have adequately justified their rulings. Chapter 8 suggested why such disagreements occur even among judges committed to the disinterested interpretation of the law. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2895

Categorization

• XREF: Ties the legitimacy criterion back to Chapter 8’s account of interpretive disagreement.