In a democracy, what considerations can justify or count in favor of a judicial decision in favor of one party rather than another? In order to resolve questions of this sort, legal theory requires (i) a justifiable method for assigning relative weight to competing legal considerations and resolving conflict in cases in which the considerations favoring both sides are closely balanced, (ii) an approach to reasoning in the context of disagreement regarding basic foundational assumptions, and (iii) an account of the fundamental character of a legal judgment within that structure. The most plausible strategy for satisfying these requirements is to require that legal judgments must be grounded in foundational assumptions regarding the requirements of law that are acceptable to all members of society and justified on the basis of arguments from those foundations that are, collectively, acceptable to and persuasive for all members of society. Since it will be virtually impossible to justify decisions that fail to treat like cases alike, courts can only satisfy the justification requirement imposed upon them by democratic values by aspiring to honor the requirement that like cases must be treated alike—courts honor democratic values, that is, by aspiring to principled consistency.