• CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I see your point, which is kind of what I meant about the exception for people that are “just there for the gig”. And I agree that when we take those into account, we have people who are legally required to defend/protect things they don’t personally support. I also think taking those people into account is a different kind of discussion, because then we’re talking about people taking an oath to uphold institutions they don’t believe in for self-serving reasons. Whether or not someone can faithfully do that is an interesting discussion in itself.

    • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      My point, ultimately, is it’s entirely possible to defend something you don’t personally support, which in turn would depend on the definition of support. I think it’s stupid and dangerous to entertain such alternative definitions in the broader context of the presidential oath of office. But it’s not inherently silly for a defense attorney to make the argument.