In the the construction “they tried that, but... ”, the part after “but”, if it identifies an action by the actor and not an outcome, identifies a departure from what is described by “that”. So, I'm not sure what you are arguing against here.
> The supreme court idea was never going happen and they knew it.
I don’t think they knew it, just as I don’t think the bknew the traffic court thing was also not going to happen, or the problems with their whole suite of legal (“sue in small claims court”, child custody, divorce) assistance supposedly-AI products were problenatic. I think they jist took the path of boldly striding into a domain they didn’t understand but somehow thought that they could market “AI” for, and ran into unpleasant reality on multiple fronts, forcing not only their scheduled traffic court demo and their hoped-for Supreme Court demo to fail to materialize, but also several of their already-available legal-aid products to be pulled, so that they would focus exclusively on consumer assistance products without as much legal sensitivity.
I'm saying the departure is so big that it doesn't make sense to frame it as even a partial solution to the idea.
> I don’t think they knew it, just as I don’t think the bknew the traffic court thing was also not going to happen, or the problems with their whole suite of legal (“sue in small claims court”, child custody, divorce) assistance supposedly-AI products were problenatic.
The combination of supreme court cases being so narrow, the interrogation being so harsh, the tech allowed in being carefully restricted, and the stakes being so high makes me think they would understand the gap between that demo and "find a guy with a parking ticket who happens to be a lawyer".