That's because there's jury and in the US in some states you don't even need legal education to be a judge so in general it's a good practice to translate technical terms into laymen and 5th grader language, if you actually want to convince them about your point.

Naturally lawyers exaggerate or manipulate the words ... they're not there to gain justice (although that's their intended purpose) but they're paid to get the decision.

You don't need a legal education to be a judge? Very interesting. Could you give some more information about this. Are judges elected or bureaucrats? How does someone become a judge? What parts of the US have this system?

Good article: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/when-yo...

Also federal judges don't need to be lawyers.

In some states you don't need a law degree to be a lawyer, either: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/education/edlife/how-to-l...

Indeed. I have no sympathy for either side - but this analogy is ridiculous. Mainly as the counter argument is "Well the only reason our players have to enter your store at all, is because you make them. We'd be perfectly happy if you could let them shop with us in our store - and then you wouldn't have to worry about the shoplifting in yours"

I’m not even concerned with the substance of the analogy. I thought law at this level wouldn’t need such intellectual crutches.

It wasn't even an accurate analogy. Compared apples to oranges. Heh.