From footnote 7 from Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion in *Hollingsworth v. Perry* about now-retired District Judge Vaughn Walker:
> At times, the trial reached the heights of parody, as when the trial judge questioned his ability to take into account the views of great thinkers of the past because they were unavailable to testify in person in his courtroom.
> And, if this spectacle were not enough, some professors of constitutional law argued that we [Justices of the Supreme Court] are bound to accept the trial judge’s findings – including those on major philosophical questions and predictions about the future – unless they are ‘clearly erroneous’….Only an arrogant legal culture that has lost all appreciation of its own limitations could take such a suggestion seriously.
That is some excellent legal writing.