This is a really interesting sentiment to me because what is the law for, if not to provide access to justice? People don't sue and society doesn't arrest people unless there's some need to do so. Where else does that need come from if not to right a perceived wrong? The law, when properly applied, should give the most just outcome possible. If it doesn't, maybe it's time to readjust how we're analyzing precedent.

This is a good distinction that can be hard to articulate. Just because two things are alike does not mean they should be treated the same by a judge. While knowing that the facts of your case looks like the facts of another case is important, it's more important to understand why the decision in the first case was reached in the first place because it may have nothing to do with the facts in common. Being able to apply reasoning to facts also helps with making arguments when there aren't any cases with facts sufficiently similar to the one you're trying to argue.

This phrase really struck me. Up to this point, the article seems to be about what is expected of research and the idea that every person has a different approach. I think it can be really easy to assume that everyone else is doing things better, even if they never say what it is they're doing, and sometimes it can be difficult to start a conversation that needs to be had when you think you aren't good enough to start it. But if important conversations are going to happen, someone has to start them.

I really appreciate the idea that a skill, especially a skill as important as this one, can be learned. This one sentence succinctly describes the learning philosophy that gets applied for almost every skill one could want. You don't need to be naturally inclined, you just need to be willing to put in the work.