3 ms·
Nah, it almost definitely shouldn't. The lawyer is representing the DOJ. Period, end of story. The enormous impact of the lawyer's representation on case law is
by chaps 6y ago
Nah, it almost definitely shouldn't. The lawyer is representing the DOJ. Period, end of story. The enormous impact of the lawyer's representation on case law is non-trivial to say the least, even it's just one person. This lawyer almost certainly works with DOJ staff who were okay with this argumentation. At what point should we get worked up? Once it becomes case law?
- koheripbal 6y agoNot really because the title is claiming the lawyer said that - which he didn't. The underlying articles merely claim that is what he is implying with his legal argument. Of course none of that is explained, and the reader is left to believe that the DOJ is actually making this argument in court - which they are not.