**AITA for Asking if the Solicitor General Is Just the Government's Lawyer With an Ego Problem?**

AITA for asking if the Solicitor General is just the government’s lawyer with an ego problem?

TL;DR: So the Solicitor General (you know, that person who shows up to argue why the Constitution is technically open to interpretation when it benefits the ruling party) just filed a brief defending the legality of, I dunno, probably something boring like tax evasion for billionaires or classifying “killing a spider” as a federal crime.

Anyway, I sarcastically tweeted, “Wow, so brave. The Solicitor General really is just the government’s unpaid intern for ‘we already lost, but let’s gaslight the Supreme Court.’” And now I have 47 angry replies from law students who think I’m disrespecting the “Fourth Branch of Government.”

I mean, come on. The SG literally argues for the government every single time. It’s like being a lawyer for a client who’s already in jail—you’re just there to make the handcuffs look fashionable. Am I wrong? Or is this just peak “I read a book once and now I’m morally superior”?

Also, side note: is it bad that I only care because the case is about whether you can sue a landlord for not fixing a toilet? The SG is literally out here defending the right to have a broken toilet in a rent-controlled apartment, and I’m supposed to respect the “principle of the matter.”

Verdict: NTA. The SG is just the legal equivalent of a toddler who insists on “doing it myself” but then cries when the state loses. Also, the sewer is leaking, Karen. Fix the toilet.