Serious 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

Serious 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.