Slashdot Mirror
Obama Nominates RIAA Lawyer For Solicitor General
Xiph1980 writes "President Barack Obama on Monday nominated former Recording Industry Association of America lawyer Donald Verrilli Jr. to serve as the nation's solicitor general. The solicitor general is charged with defending the government before the Supreme Court, and files friend-of-the court briefs in cases in which the government believes there is a significant legal issue. The office also determines which cases it would bring to the Supreme Court for review. Verrilli is best known for leading the recording industry's legal charge against music- and movie-sharing site Grokster. That 2003 case ultimately led to Grokster's demise when the US Supreme Court sided with the RIAA's verdict."
I can understand the argument that he wants the most vicious shark in the tank to be his attack dog. I might could even buy the argument that this WASN'T just another in a long line of examples of Obama prostrating himself before his Hollywood and entertainment industry patrons. But, it seems to me that he could have found an attack dog that was just as vicious who didn't come with RIAA baggage. To hire someone whose such an obvious enemy of much of the online community and such a lapdog of the entertainment industry seems specifically designed to send a message to his patrons that he's definitely in their pocket. It's the judicial equivalent of Eddie Cicotte hitting the first batter in the 1919 World Series.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
...prepare to be disappointed.
I prefer to believe that he's a good guy, overwhelmed with work and following some very bad advice.
Why?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
1, he's a politician, and 2, the corporate owned media doesn't hate his guts.
Those are your two biggest clues.
I'm stumped. Maybe Obama thinks this is what the voters want based-upon the November results, but I seriously doubt it.
If you listen to Glenn beck or Judge Andrew Napolitano (L), you'd know he's always been pro-business, dating all the way back to when Mr. Obama met with insurance companies on the campaign trail and promised to help them make a profit via Mandatory insurance requirements for all americans.
Also observe that most of his "czars" are either ex-financial agents of Bear-Sterns, AIG, and so on. This is Obama doing what he's always done.
Of course if you only listen to Rachel Maddow, then you were probably unaware.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Having successfully argued in favor of leveling million-dollar fines against people for downloading a handful of MP3s, he's clearly uniquely qualified for defending insane positions that cannot be rationally argued with anything but emotion.
No he's a modern politician. That means that he has to spend most of his time fund-raising. And the entertainment industry are some of his biggest donors.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
just like how other appointments in his administration turned out to be.
Read radical news here
Verrilli was not, as the summary implies, a lawyer who worked exclusively for the RIAA. Verrilli worked for Jenner & Block, one of the larger law firms in the US. The recording studios were one client of many, and it does not appear that he had a habit of representing studios. Judging by his significant Supreme Court experience, Verrilli represented a wide variety of clients, including indigent criminal defendants, a federal employee who alleged he was discriminated against because of his age, insurance agent trade groups, wireless telecommunications companies (against the FCC), Coors Brewing Company (arguing against a state law forbidding the display of alcohol content on beer), citizens alleging violations of their voting rights, and the American Libraries Association (arguing against the Communications Decency Act of 1996) .
That's a broad set of clients, including a lot of litigation against the government, which is what the Solicitor General handles. It is absurd to impute an agenda to an attorney based on one case, and Verrilli seems qualified for the job of Solicitor General.
You know, as an attorney, we're hired to defend vigorously the position of our clients or their interests. That doesn't necessarily mean we advocate for that position as private individuals, or that we are incapable of striking a fair position. The only thing that should matter as a nominee for a Solicitor General position is whether she can diligently represent the government's position, and that is all.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
So, someone represented a company that has different ideas than you do...and that's a problem because? /.ers really believe that their employer is their sole identity defining characteristic?
Do
Are all of you who work for asshole-bosses also assholes?
It sure seems that that's what you're all saying when you go on these witch-hunts.
I think we should look into WHY they chose him. He represents the government in front of the supreme court. His specialty is copyright law. What sort of laws or decisions do you think the administration will be enacting in the near future that they thought they'd need his services? It looks like Obama's getting ready to be challenged in court. We should expect so new draconian policies regarding the internet in the near future.
It depends on how you define pro-business. I would say that Obama is anti-business but pro-corporation. However, the only thing that has changed with Obama is his rhetoric. His policies have always favored large corporations and harmed small business.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
you are wrong.
many of us voted 'in his direction' but not FOR him.
we were not (none of us) given a true choice. a truer choice would be something like:
- vote *for* R
- vote *for* D
- vote *for* I1 (thru In)
and then the discrete complements:
- vote *against* R
- vote *against* D
(etc)
and so you would tally your vote sheet to say what you felt. you may not want to put D's in office, say, but you sure as hell don't want to see R's there. with this kind of multi-attribute ballot, you could do that. would they ever consider this? NO, of course not.
so what we have is a simplistic DUMBED DOWN ballot and we are forced to pick the least of 2 evils. this is why obama won this time. the other guys were just that much worse and we didn't want THEM in office. we knew our guys would be hell but a slightly less harsh form of hell and in slightly different ways.
this is american politics. its not logical or reasonable or designed by 'folks like us' that can deal with multi-attrib tables and columns and really do a sort on more than one column. WE could do this, but 'we' don't get in office or run things. 'we' are always on the sidelines, noticing it but powerless to do a damned thing..
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
This guy was NOT the RIAAs chief counsel, or responsible for their litigation strategy against individuals. He is a lawyer who has litigated a wide range of cases, most of which have absolutely bupkis to do with the entertainment industry. In fact, it is probably his broad expertise that led to him being appointed to the job. Yes, he was the litigator for the Grokster case, which he won. I don't see how this makes him a slave to the entertainment industry. Both sides of a case are entitled to be represented by counsel; in this case, he happened to be representing a side we, Slashdot, don't particularly like.
Just because a lawyer represents one side of a case does not mean they approve of everything (or even anything) a client does. Are we also going to claim the lawyer representing the maniac from AZ is on the side of "letting psychotic killers go free?"
Of course if you only listen to Rachel Maddow, then you were probably unaware.
If you think that Rachel Maddow doesn't hit Obama for this stuff all the time, then you're just as blindly partisan as you claim other people to be. Characters like Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, and Bill Maher have been giving Obama shit since be got elected - from hiring much of Clinton's economic team with their heavy ties to the financial industry, to his backdoor meetings with healthcare providers promising not to bargain for lower bulk rates if they would support the reform bill.
See, the funny part about all of this is that people like Glenn Beck think that Obama is a socialist, an evil plant of the far-left set out to destroy all American values, but then they turn right around and accusing him of being in the pocket of big business without the least bit of irony. The guy is a centrist, and he's clearly positioning himself to work with the Republican Congress to try and get some compromises and get some things accomplished over the next two-year period - much to the chagrin of his Rachel-Maddow-watching supporters.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
His specialty as a paid litigator is IP and Telecomm law. But most of his Supreme Court cases were on other topics, including those near and dear to Slashdot hearts like civil liberties.
I never thought I'd see the day in which a post referencing Glenn Beck* as an authoritative source would get modded up here on Slashdot of all places. Things must be bad...
* I did listen to him 'til they took him off the air here this year - I found him entertaining. Occasionally a bit liberal with his "facts" -- a true master of contextual contortions - but entertaining in spite (or perhaps because) of that.
Lawyers are paid to represent their CLIENT's interests, not their own. This guy could have personally disagreed with the RIAA and the Supreme Court's ruling, but as an attorney you are obligated to represent your client in the best possible manner.
I'm pretty sure a defense lawyer for Jarad Loughner personally believes her client is guilty and should get the chair for his crimes, but she's still obligated to defend her client as best as possible.
He's going from defending the RIAA to defending the government. His clients get scummier every year... :p
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Those of you that vote D just to keep the R's out or R just to keep the D's out have fallen for one of the biggest scams ever in the history of this country. Take a look at the ridiculous abuses of your civil rights that continue daily with no end in sight. 9/11 got the ball rolling under the R's but the D's have not done a darn thing to curb those abuses: TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, throwing people in jail for asserting their rights . . . the list goes on and on.
The current systems main purpose is to perpetuate itself. Not to help you in any way shape or form. If you receive some benefit from your vote this is a collateral coincidence and not the intent of the electorate.
For the vast majority of candidates running for public office, when you elect a D or an R to office, you are just picking a particular flavor of lies and erosion of your rights. You are not making this country into a better place. You are helping to perpetuate a system that has been co-opted by special interests and legalized bribery.
Why doesn't the FBI get sanctioned for warrant-less wire tapping of American citizens?
Why is the TSA permitted to continue to operate as it does even though it's been proven time and time again that it's procedures and methods are woefully ineffective?
and so on and so on.
Wake up and smell the corrupt system.
There is a restaurant that I like to frequent. It's a casual place and they have a number of humorous signs posted on the walls. My favorite is:
"If voting made a difference it would be illegal"
It's a joke but like all good humor it's the bit of truth behind it that makes it truly funny.
Yes it's possible that you are "throwing" your vote away when you vote for someone outside the two parties. But at least you are not helping to feed the machine that doesn't give a hoot about you and your rights.
Vote for someone/something else. When enough people do so, the system WILL change.
Because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate: it is no longer possible to elect good leaders in the USA, and the country is doomed.
What on earth gave you the idea that Obama was a good leader, and not just cult of personality?
If nothing else, vote for yourself.
pardon my french, but WHAT THE FUCK does that prove?
the issue is how to stop horrible things happening. its often the best case scenario you can hope for.
voting 'for myself' is truly throwing my effective vote away; in fact, it does not even send any message at all!
voting 3rd party also throws your vote away IF the goal is to stop the worst of the worst from getting in.
if you have the luxury of saying 'none are too bad, so which one do I *like*' that's great. but that's just not my experience in this world. mostly, its 'who needs to be STOPPED' that we have to address our votes toward.
we won't get a 3rd party candiate overnight OR EVER. get a clue how locked-up tight our broken assed system is. you think things can be fixed. I do not. I think the whole thing needs a total re-write, nothing short of that will fix it.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
You know: "I don't read,"
I don't know where you got that quote from since other quotes have him saying he was an avid reader. Indeed that seems like just the sort of out of context quote it's so easy to find about anyone if you go looking...
Obama has said things like "there are 57 states" (and even in fact repeated that "heckuva job" line himself referring to someone else). It's easy enough to cherry-pick moments in life where someone, even at the highest levels, misspeaks. Which is why it's far better to judge what they say on average then on specific statements highlighted by others specifically to sound stupid. And on average, as noted, Bush was overall a more intelligent and better informed speaker than Obama.
As for the credentials neither Bush's or Obama's credentials impress me BY THEMSELVES. That's the point I was making, and does not contradict anything I was saying (while at the same time also noting that Obama's credentials alone do not automatically make him smarter than someone without them).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley