Like Trump, et. al. the purpose of this sort of litigation isn't to actually win, it's to harass, intimidate, and score political points (emphasis on the last part).
Big Tech is slightly, barely progressive in the sense that they believe in climate change, sometimes remove hate speech and blindingly false information from their platforms, would like a federal privacy law (with plenty of holes), and want to keep encryption. As we've seen with the Russia/Ukraine/Mueller Report, Barr has zero issue with prosecuting the other side for the very things his side is doing- he is 100% a tribalist.
Have you seen some of the judges Trump is appointing. They'll eventually get thrown out, but not before hitting the Court of Appeals.
Perhaps not life or death, but his analogy still holds true- the idea that you can "technically" walk away from the encounter does not mean that's practically what would happen. For example, some courts have ruled that failure to give consent to a search is not probable cause. However, not giving consent + a vague description of acting suspiciously does. You can see how easy it is manipulated by the police who face zero repercussions for lying.
That would require the DOJ to do something about it (which is unlikely). I was asking in context of old fashioned discovery.
It's been a while since I've done litigation, but can't you get information on who is funding litigation as a part of discovery?
I thought his reason for his regret is also the Chevron deference. A new judicial approach is to require the legislature to make the regulations, rather than defer to the executive branch. The idea has the shroud of originalism, but the net result would be to make it harder to create and update regulations based on changing circumstances, technology, etc.
That means fewer laws regulating telecoms, environment, food supply, etc. It also has the effect of allowing conservatives to attack those who want regulations as being out of date, ineffective, etc. because they're outdated and can't be updated unless approved by congress (which conservatives will oppose as a means of maintaining talking points, attack ads, etc.- they aren't interested in updates, they want the entire law eliminated.)
Part of the problem is that they (conservatives) tie themselves in knots to claim that liberals are the REAL racists, fascism=liberalism, etc. Yet, they complain that conservative voices are being silenced when those sorts of views are rightly suppressed or banned by a private company. Which is it?