I share the nausea, but you open a bucket o'worms, at the root: sordid employment of the English language, in the precise manner that Billy n'Bally employ that - to spin, create tautologies, intentionally confuse "scale and relativity" - and other common Bowdlerizations which IMhO, 'we' as a kultur: have become inured to, through incessant exposure.

These are the stuff of the daily cacophony of phoniness, spin, $-oriented pitches - all intermixed with maudlin sentimentality. (Insincerity is as Homo-sap as apple pie; if one is good at it: Praise / Marketing job assured) The success of patently bogus arguments appears related to maybe, *not* being taught adequately through school experience: how it is most often that - people lie with words.

Yes, many learn this about 'us', but that knowledge comes too late - for too many. Too many on juries - for one? For suggestible folk are now targetted via sophisticated technical means: for malleability in a certain direction. THAT is the *pre-game* which determines outcome before the players take the field. IMhO. We have made this ultimate cynicism - 'respectable' thus maiming That word along with others like, 'innovation' yada yada.

Lawyers thus may be the prototype for intentional misuse of language, putatively in the "higher cause" of - redefining the idea of 'adversarial'. IF you accept the notion that, it is OK to 'win for your client' via ANY MEANS possible (even if you 'know' s/he is guilty? or that the words used are intentional appeals to irrelevant thus bogus emotional doggerel? fill in others ___) THEN:

Has it-all not now become a religious thing? Precisely such IMO, for to "play" in the US 'legal sport' (and most? but not all others?) -- one must give lip-service to what Fred Rodell, Dean of the Yale Law School dubbed, the entire pseudo-science of the law.

And that p-science appears to assert all the above. 'Truth' is to be assiduously sought IF and ONLY IF: it helps YOUR case; ELSE its uncovering is to be vigorously fought via every inane precedent as can be indexed, retrieved (or exemporaneously invented?) and announced -- as interruption to the process. 'Trial by Combat' of this kind is tantamount to, if the witch survives the dunking and lives - she must not be a witch. (or.. did she survive because.. she is?)

So then.. is Dershowitz a slime because he is Good at the Religion of 'law' = because being Good at THAT: has little to do with er Truth, Honor, Justice, ____ ? Remember too the spin which sustains such a travesty (if it is seen to be a travesty?) derives from very much else that suffuses Murican culture and many (but not all) others:

The Murican Dream\ufffd overall, only part of which is: the Hollywood version of Honest advocates merely and cleverly Seeking Truth. Perry Mason. (er the author).

Does a Brandeis, at the top - ameliorate the legions of wannabe Dershowitzes which appear in 'his' court? We may (only) hope so. A Scalia/Thomas? too? But then overall: what is the average "play" much more likely to create, for the average schmuck with limited funds to buy 'average' defense?

[Let's not even start on contemporary Drug Warz, confiscations, DA politics, the exploding prison Corporate Industry and 3-Strikes computer-sentences. Not here, anyway]

Condemn Dershowitz and you condemn the entire pseudo-science. (However deeply ingrained, by repetition of the pious slogans about the Majesty of homo-sap Law) Don't you?


Ashton
then.. What To 'Do' next (?) Sue?