When I'm discussing laws it's the equivalent of me telling the world how a certain law "tastes" to my mind. The taste of a law is so personal, so subjective, that what I think a certain law tastes like wouldn't be what another person thinks it tastes like.
To some other person the new law could be like their favorite food while to me it could be the most disgusting tasting smelling thing I've seen.
And neither of us who merely can express how the law tastes has any understanding of what the ingredients are or anything other than how it tastes to our limited sensory understanding.
The same can be said of music. A person who doesn't know much about music might think some pop song sounds good. A person who is classically trained might prefer some Jazz or something more sophisticated.
We don't ask a common person to read music notation to compare songs. We simply let them listen to it and tell us what they enjoy more. The laws are experienced by us non lawyers in the same way we experience a good or bad song. We don't know how to make a song, and most of us can't read music notation, but we know if it sounds good to our ears or not.
The "sounds good" is sentiment. Everyone has an opinion about anything (sentiment). Laws can be ranked by popularity (sentiment). This doesn't mean the people feeling or thinking a certain way about a certain law even know what the law does or what it means. We simply live through it.