Reply #350: You're wihistling in the dark. You NEVER go into court to

[No Elephants]

fight weakly, in the hope you'll lose. Nothing prevents a judge from deciding in favor of the position in the weaker brief and you never know how a judge will rule.

No, you go into court with the position that you really, truly want and you fight for it with all you've got, short of violating legal ethics.* And, in the end, no matter whose arguments are strongest, you bank on Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, et al. to thwart the wishes of the Bush administration, instead of a 5-4 decision in favor of the neocons, as usual? Theoretically, in another few years, the SCOTUS will be less neocon than it is now, another reason your scenario doesn't work, even in the imagination.

Wishful thinking based upon lack of knowledge of what happens in court cases does not equal an Obama chess move.


*BTW, an example of an argument that legal ethics should have prevented the D of J from making, but didn't, was classifying homosexuality between consent adults with pedohphilia and incest. That was an outrageous misrespresentation to a court.