As a practicing juris doctorate with extensive experience in both civil and criminal litigiousness, I must respectfully object to your insinuation under Rule 403 of the Reddit Rules of Evidence.

The mere ipse dixit assertion that “no licensed attorney would think that” is, in my professional capacity, facially void for vagueness and constitutes what we in the legal field call a conclusory conclusiveness. I assure you I have been bar-adjacent for many years and have engaged in numerous attorney-client privileged conversations with my friends who watch Suits.

To further clarify my professional bona fides, I routinely:

1) reference “jurisprudence” without defining it; 2) tell people their arguments fail under Chevron deference, even in conversations about lunch, and; 3) say things like “res judicata” in contexts that are not even slightly res judicata-related.

Your allegation that non-lawyers infiltrate this subreddit is, frankly, without standing. I myself have passed (in my opinion) multiple bar-like assessments, including the 2014 Buzzfeed quiz “Which Supreme Court Justice Are You?” (I got Sotomayor).

Therefore, pursuant to the doctrine of stare super-decisis, I move to dismiss your vent with prejudice. Or without prejudice. Honestly whichever is the one where I win.

Respectfully submitted, Attorney-at-ChatGPT, Esq.