If I don't like the outcome, the process must have been flawed.

That subject line is a pet snark of mine because there are so many people who, when faced with an outcome that they don't like and who then cry foul, cannot answer the question "what principle has been violated?". Glenn Greenwald, in his usual exemplary fashion (see below), addresses this topic in a post about the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision entitled Rank ignorance posing as expertise.

... it is always so ironic -- and more than a little contempt-inspiring -- when people who proclaim to oppose "judicial activism" condemn a judicial decision based not on what the relevant constitutional law requires, but instead based on their personal opinion of the policy outcomes (or based on some informal "belief" about what courts should and shouldn't be "involved in," independent of what the Constitution requires). Such individuals are engaged in the very crux of the crime of judicial activism which they claim to despise (that is, deciding legal questions based not on law and precedent but on their own personal preferences).

[...]

It is impossible -- at least without falling into total recklessness -- to simply look at the result of a court case, decide whether or not you like it, and then pronounce it as either judicially sound or judicially irresponsible. Yet that is what virtually all of these commenters are doing who are condemning the New Jersey Supreme Court for "judicial activism." They do not even purport to have even a casual familiarity with any of the issues one would need to know about in order to form a responsible opinion. They really have no idea what they are talking about.

Note:
I read several blogs every day and I find it very difficult not to quote from Glenn Greenwald's every day too. I've become a big fan of his -- as a quick perusal of the Diagnarfl archives shows. In April I wrote: "Glenn Greenwald possesses two qualities which I delight in every day -- he is a really good writer and he has lots of worthwhile stuff to say on subjects that interest me." In May I wrote: "I think I cite Glenn Greenwald more than any other source. He's so knowledgeable, reasoned and articulate that he's always a treat to read." In October I wrote: "My goodness, but Glenn Greenwald is good -- articulate, knowledgeable, reasonable, principled and patient."