In 44 BC, a Roman judge named Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla had a habit that made him unpopular with litigants and indispensable to jurisprudence. Every time a case came before him, before hearing arguments, before reviewing evidence, he asked one question: cui bono? Who benefits? Not who claims to benefit. Not who says they’re acting in the public interest. Who actually, materially, financially benefits from this outcome? Cassius understood that the stated reason for an action and the actual reason are rarely the same thing. Twenty centuries later, we could
