Opinion arguments rationalize decisions rather than explain how they are reached.

Evidence

But because I hold that it is an error to require that the arguments of an opinion explain how the decision was reached rather than how it can be rationalized, this is not an argument, on my terms, for an additional modality. — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 408

Categorization

• DEFINE: Bobbitt here states his key position that constitutional argument provides rationalization, not an account of the actual decision process.
• XREF: connects to: Lesser-evil arguments make people forget they chose evil; Judges’ attitudes cannot be reliably inferred from opinion rhetoric — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 120; Decisions against one’s will arise from situational confluence, not rational deliberation — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre: The Riddle of…, 489 (+1 more)

Related

• For me, the use of the six forms of constitutional argument is the way we decide constitutional questions in the American legal culture. The use of these six forms maintains the legitimacy of… (similarity 0.81)
• Legal and non-legal deciders draw on different but overlapping argument forms. (similarity 0.80)
• Bobbitt’s appeal to conscience is not an escape hatch from the modalities. (similarity 0.80)
• Forms of constitutional argument are validated by their presence in practice, not by approval (similarity 0.79)
• I further believed that journalists, and citizens generally, could make use of these forms of legal argument, although they were not confined to legal argument in making constitutional decisions… (similarity 0.79)
• Motivation for a ruling must be distinguished from constitutional causality (similarity 0.78)