It is true that being hungry makes you irritable. But that irritability is a component of wanting a snack, and the claim is that the feeling of wanting a snack was responsible for a judge denying parole across the board to all candidates, among whom ostensibly 67% deserved parole.

I assume we've both felt hungry for too long. I do feel annoyed and frustrated, maybe I make a rude remark or snap at someone. It is not my belief that it is a feeling powerful enough to make me carry out a massive miscarriage of justice and ruin people's lives for years to come. And I expect judges typically have more willpower than me.

I have seen people be unfair when hangry. And expecting judges to be fundamentally different people then rest of us is irrational. That job attracts people who like to have power. That is about what is special about them.

Judges have made it through law school and typically are selected for their ability to make fair decisions according to the law. I lacked the willpower to survive a year of undergrad, but I have no trouble holding back my temper when others' wellbeing is on the line. It stands to reason that either I am a different kind of person than the rest of you, or that the average judge is better at this than me.

I don't know that judges are fundamentally power-seeking (I expect someone who has a judges credentials and wants power would rather be a prosecutor), but assuming so, I'm not sure I should expect someone who seeks power to be more beholden to their emotions than average.