Legal critique often masks a disagreement over underlying value judgments.

Evidence

Often an alleged attack on the “reasoning” of the court is really a disagreement with the value judgment implicit in the court’s major premise—a disagreement with the court’s selection and interpretation of the applicable legal precept. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 451

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 451
• XREF: connects to: Judges rely on personal values when competing legal principles are evenly balanced — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 156; Legal categories remain ambiguous to accommodate changing community values — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 243; Legal outcomes depend on variable choices and value judgments rather than absolutes. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 752 (+10 more)