"It defies reason to think that 11 minutes before she was found in this condition she could possibly have possessed capacity to consent. The judge’s failure to attend seriously to the implications of these facts may also warrant appeal."

It's troubling to think that this level of ratiocination can sustain a career as a law professor.  

What are people to make of an 'argument' that is nothing but 'it defies reason to think'?  No it doesn't, and mere disagreement is not grounds for appeal.