Kathrine Robertson

Because, I mean, you know, you're there to represent the people.

If they're mad about it, you're mad about it.

And you say that.

The AG's job is very different.

Because if my boss gets out there and says the wrong thing, he could end up being cross-examined.

He could end up being deposed.

I mean, and so it's a little more serious of a role because of that.

Because you are stating the state's legal position in court documents, in federal court, at the United States Supreme Court.

There's not a whole lot of room for rhetoric and talking points.

Right.

So one thing we try to do at the state level, at least, is if there's a law that we know we're going to enforce that's going to cause issues for the people or there's going to be an interpretation problem, we try to go over there and engage the legislature as they're writing the laws.

Right, get ahead of it.

To a lesser degree, we do that with Congress.

I think where the real vagueness comes in is when you're interpreting the Constitution, and there's a lot of room.

You see the Supreme Court, they're all over the map trying to interpret things.

And so we just try to take the most conservative, honest...

Yeah.

You know, I think, I mean, I think if we're being honest, there's been a big shift in the federal judiciary, all the way down to federal district judges, but certainly all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.

And I think, you know, 20, 30, 40, certainly years ago,

it was an academic intellectual exercise for the United States Supreme Court to reach an outcome.