I think Scott provided a really interesting perspective about morality in court. As an attorney, he’s not the one judges the defendant, the jury is. His purpose is to defend his client even if he/she may not be entirely innocent, he still had to trust his client’s words and defend them. I realized that it’s not his job to decide what’s right or wrong, that decision lies in the hands of the public. The jury, the everyday people, have a say in what’s right or wrong. And having the attorney judge who their client is, would be partial, as he is only one opinion and does not necessarily reflect what the nation believes in. That’s why it’s important to have your voice heard in this nation because it can be heard and it may change public opinion. I think that’s why Scott mentioned protesting, as it’s a way to get people’s voices and opinions heard that can potentially change our country.

Gonna get nerdy here. Listening to Scott reminded me of the Ace Attorney games where you play as a defense attorney and using your logic, you have to win these crazy, wildly absurd cases. It works through those themes like always trusting your client/seeking truth/never giving up etc. Through the game’s philosophy and antics I think this quote from the game may fit best for this discussion:

“The law is the end product of many years of history… the fruit of human knowledge! Like a gem, polished to a gleam through trials… and errors. It is this fruit we receive, and pass on, and face in our time. And it is always changing, growing. Nurturing it is our task as human beings” (Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney).