"Sanist" attitudes are attitudes that are driven by the same kind of irrational, unconscious, and bias-driven stereotypes revealed in racist and sexist decisionmaking. These attitudes can lead to "pretextual decisions," in which dishonest testimony is either explicitly or implicitly accepted. In conjunction with these sanist issues, legal decisionmakers use social science data selectively, accepting it when it supports a conclusion that the fact- finder wishes to reach but subordinated when it questions such a conclusion. Judicial decisions reflecting sanist attitudes have involved involuntary civil commitment, cases involving the right to refuse antipsychotic medication, incompetency to stand trial, and the insanity defense. The resulting doctrinal incoherence is unsurprising. The efforts of Wexler, Winick and others to study therapeutic jurisprudence represent one step toward the reconstruction of law regarding mental disabilities. It is also important to confront the biases and inappropriate assumptions of the law in all policy contexts, including courtrooms, legislatures, attorney's organizations, and educational institutions. Footnotes