Judges’ approval-seeking by peers can be charged against rulings from either side.

Evidence

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia charged that the Court’s ruling was influenced by a desire to please the justices’ peers in the legal profession, that the ruling was “the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda.” Because the ruling was “directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct,” one adopting Baum’s approach might also inquire whether Scalia’s dissent reflected a desire for the approval of those who hold a more traditional view of homosexual conduct. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2645

Categorization

• XREF: Links the audienced-based theory directly to the Lawrence v. Texas case that opened the chapter. — connects to: Court rulings can be interpreted to support both sides of a contested policy debate — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 208