> I'd like that lawyer fired and pilloried for making such a gobsmackingly idiotic statement. Like it or not, ours is an adversarial legal system. To a first a

> I'd like that lawyer fired and pilloried for making such a gobsmackingly idiotic statement. Like it or not, ours is an adversarial legal system. To a first approximation, this case is an issue of civil liberties vs security, and as a lawyer representing the side of security, it's his responsibility to stand up for security. I agree with the ACLU's position on this matter 100%, but I don't fault the lawyer for stating that position. Security is one of the several, contradictory responsibilities in the Constitution[1], along with personal liberties. It's something the government is supposed to ensure, and it's not wrong for a lawyer to mention the potential repercussions of a ruling towards their ability to fulfill that responsibility. Now, if it were a judge making that statement, I'd flip my shit. It's a judge's duty to balance the competing concerns, and it's the lawyers' place to advocate for one or the other. The lawyer did his job, stating the resultant effect on the issue he was advocating. And the judge did his job, deciding that despite that result, other competing concerns were more important. [1] For a partial list of such responsibilities, check the Preamble to the Constitution, which enumerates at least 6: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.