4 ms·
I’m just replying to the note about the title. However, as the grandparent post notes, “DOJ Argues” makes it sound like the Attorney General / the entire DOJ a
by boulos 6y ago
I’m just replying to the note about the title.
However, as the grandparent post notes, “DOJ Argues” makes it sound like the Attorney General / the entire DOJ argues such a thing. “DOJ Lawyer” makes it clear “some lawyer at the DOJ said”.
I would certainly agree that winning a case with this argument would establish such a precedent. But again, it’s not clear that “the DOJ” stated this, nor is it (seemingly) an argument that worked.
- chaps 6y agoSerious question -- at the point that it becomes precedential and can be done, effectively willy nilly, what difference does it make if the AG said it? This isn't as if the lawyer just said it in passing, and the lawyer knows full-well that this may become case law. If the DOJ starts using the precedent (which can be argued that they'd be arguing for such a thing), is that when we should be worried? It sounds very much like you're okay with the fact that a DOJ lawyer went in front of a judge and argued this because, "hey, what's the harm?". Just because the judge thinks something is appalling doesn't necessarily mean that they won't rule in favor of the appalling statements/argument.
- monocasa 6y agoIt's the DoJ's representative, specifically chosen to speak for the DoJ in this trial.
- loeg 6y agoA DOJ attorney directly represents the DOJ. This attorney isn't rogue and hasn't been dismissed.