I didn’t miss your point. My original point was the people, guided by headlines, think a court ruled that he asked for a “lawyer dog”. That’s not what the ruling hinged on. I agree that the ruling should have gone the other way, but the popular fixation on the “lawyer dog” aspect stops the actual examination dead.

That’s it. That’s my whole point. You’re basically agreeing with me that the ruling was wrong, so I’m not sure what the problem is.