My approach to deciding cases is I look at the law, I look at the facts, and I do my best to apply the law to the facts and make a decision based on the law and the facts.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I have had to make a decision I may not agree with, but I am required to follow the letter of the law. It is not my job to think what is best... My responsibility is to decide what the law says and to decide to the law.
I consider myself sort of like a pseudo lawyer. Like, I'm convinced I can solve every case and argue my way.
Obviously I'm a lawyer; I like to have cases.
Take the situation of a scientist solving a problem, where he has certain data, which call for certain responses. Some of this set of data call for his applying such and such a law, while others call for another law.
Every law, every constitution, every regulative decision is based upon what people are discussing in their community. It's based upon our sum knowledge of history and the present.
My job is to interpret the law based on how the legislature and the court has done it and then, of course, to use our system of justice to develop some new legal tools and new concepts.
Decisions should be based on facts, objectively considered.
What I really like about law is that it's not an endless discourse like history or philosophy. In law, there comes a point where problems have to be solved, and cases decided.
I've become very fond of the law. I've always been an advocate for justice, which occasionally the law brings to light.
When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.