3 ms·
> But don't take it as an overview of what the case is actually about, because it's not that. The focus of the blog post was not the case as a whole, it was to
by skissane 2y ago
> But don't take it as an overview of what the case is actually about, because it's not that.
The focus of the blog post was not the case as a whole, it was to call out one specific argument made by a DOJ attorney in a legal brief. In fact, it quite explicitly eschews going into the ultimate point of the case ("The specifics of what the government claims Saine did wrong (in short: arcane labor law) are beside the point").
It isn't fair to judge the post as an "overview of what the case is actually about", because it was never attempting to be that.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoOK. But don't take it as a fair overview of what that one specific argument is about, either. A lawyer on a case, during the case, isn't going to give you a fair treatment of any aspect of the case - not in public.
- skissane 2y agoIt is an opinionated blog post. Who ever claimed it wasn’t? Of course a blog post by an attorney about a case they are actively involved in is not going to be entirely neutral and objective - and that’s not just true if they work for IJ or other libertarian or conservative-aligned lobby groups or “public interest law firms”, it is equally true if they work for ACLU or EFF or SPLC or Lambda Legal or whatever. Stating the obvious implies it isn’t obvious to others, but I don’t think that’s fair or true