[El Gato]

You are suggesting either that O's lawyers should have tried to have the trial before there was one, or should have waived all their responses and asked to go straight to trial. That might sound good to you, but no lawyer is going to think that's a good plan.

Why not? If they have absolute proof that their client is not what the opposition says. It would save a lot of money. Our money, since it's the DoJ lawyers doing this.

I've been called for jury duty 5 times. Each time I was sent home without serving on a jury because many of the parties settled before trial, and I didn't even get on the panel from which a jury would be seated. Except twice I did get picked for a jury panel, and heard the "challenge" proceedings, but they didn't challenge or otherwise disqualify enough jurors to get to me. At least one of those was settled before trial, the other was so long ago, circa 1980, I don't remember if it went to trial or not.

But I have another jury summons sitting on my desk right now for October 26th at the county seat.

[mlo]

"Why not? If they have absolute proof that their client is not what the opposition says. It would save a lot of money. Our money, since it's the DoJ lawyers doing this."

I don't see saving money being a motivation for a lawyer, especially one working for Obama. Do you?

"Each time I was sent home without serving on a jury because many of the parties settled before trial..."

Why should Obama's lawyers consider a settlement when they have every reason to expect a favorable ruling on a motion to dismiss?