Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Nominates RIAA Lawyer For Solicitor General

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the this'll-be-great dept.

Democrats 463

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."

cancel ×

463 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't worry big media, the fix is in (5, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993570)

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 [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (2, Insightful)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993640)

Your first thoughts mirrored mine exactly. He want's a good lawyer first if he'll be defending the government in court. Not sure how this makes him their "lapdog." How does this benefit the RIAA or recording industry as a whole? When was the government directly implicated in a case involving the recording industry?

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (4, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993716)

You assume people stop being corrupt greed-mongers when they switch jobs. Funny guy!

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (2)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993752)

You assume people stop being corrupt greed-mongers when they switch jobs. Funny guy!

This is a non-sequitur. Does his past mean that he's going to start suing copyright infringers on behalf of the US government?

yes it does (3, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993852)

just like how other appointments in his administration turned out to be.

Re:yes it does (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994404)

Exactly. The time is long past where we can make assumptions that he's different from anyone else in Washington or has anyone's best interest in mind besides himself and his power base.

Not much hope nor change in aligning with the RIAA, Barack O'Quisling

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34993892)

You're completely missing the point. He'll be operating as the governments defense attorney. He won't be suing or prosecuting anyone. It seems to also be completely missed on slashdot that lawyers don't generally make it a requirement that they agree with everything every one of their clients does. They do what they can for their clients because that's their job. You wouldn't hate the RIAA's plumber, their lawyer should really be no different.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34993964)

You wouldn't hate the RIAA's plumber,

Are you so sure? He helps them achieve their goals by keeping their bathrooms from flooding!

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (5, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993982)

The Solicitor General does way more than that. As another post in the thread pointed out, a big part of the job is filing Amicus Curiae briefs with the Supreme Court. that means when the RIAA/MPAA or big media goes before the Supreme Court, guess who will be asked to file a friend of the Court brief saying "We support these guys"?

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (1)

Somewhat Delirious (938752) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994260)

You wouldn't hate the RIAA's plumber, their lawyer should really be no different.

Ha ha HA. Very funny.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (3, Informative)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993746)

"Amicus Curiae: Literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views. Such amicus curiae briefs are commonly filed in appeals concerning matters of a broad public interest; e.g., civil rights cases. They may be filed by private persons or the government. In appeals to the U.S. courts of appeals, an amicus brief may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof." -- legal-dictionary.freedictionary.com This means that in cases such as the legality of the suits filed by the *IAA's, he will have the ability to file amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the administration and/or the *IAA's. It doesn't have to mean that the government was directly implicated in anything, but it is a preparatory action for the future class action suits that will be filed against them.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (3, Insightful)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993662)

Obama is better than W only because he has a normal IQ. As to his politics, he's a corporatist who's broken enough campaign promises (close gitmo! Stop military tribunals of suspected terrists! Get out of Iraq! End welfare for the rich!) to lose 3 re-election bids. Nonetheless, I'll probably have to vote for him because the other side will be running some jackass like Palin, Pawlenty or Bachmann, and letting them get within 3 miles of the White House would be disastrous.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (1)

shuz (706678) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993802)

Ya sure, Minnesota just don't make http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mondale [wikipedia.org] presidential candidates like we used to don'tcha know.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (1, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993946)

(ah, our 'morning rage' article. alright, lets get on with it.)

you are correct that obama has a significantly better IQ, speaking ability and also does not wear his religion like a badge of honor. he had potential and we looked forward to the upgrade from the bumbling idiot to a well-spoken thinking person.

so, what happened? did the office corrupt him (obama)? is it the case of 'the office makes the man' and no matter how well-intentioned you may be, maybe so much power corrupts and no one can say no. no one. in which case, it almost does not matter who we send in - the very system will form them and the system is really in control.

you also mention that you *must* vote the D side since the thought of R's running things scares you. I feel the same way and would only vote D just to keep the R's away. I do NOT want D's; I want less R's. there is a difference even though the system thinks that a vote for X is a simultaneous vote against all not-X. when I, and many others vote, we are mostly in a 'vote against' mode and we pick who we want *least* in office, then invert the set and pick those. the system should really allow *attributes* on the vote, not just a yes/no value. we have computers - we can tally stuff like that up. too bad we are not evenn willing to revisit HOW we do things.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (4, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994534)

I feel the same way and would only vote D just to keep the R's away. I do NOT want D's; I want less R's.

Wow. If people think this way, then I've just thought of a way it could be exploited. All I would have to do would be to pick what I wanted to happen and have it supported by group A, and then just make sure that alternative B was horribly worse. For added refinement to stop people getting wise to it, I could divide up what I wanted to achieve between both A and B and alternate which appeared worse.

Phew. I'm glad no-one else has ever thought of that. Can you imagine what America would be like if they had...?

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (1, Flamebait)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994014)

Obama is better than W only because he has a normal IQ.

By which you mean he agrees with your politics.

Bush graduated from Yale, earned a Harvard MBA (the only president with an MBA), and few fighter jets for the military. Say what you want, but nobody was in the cockpit with him flying for him. Apparently he was also an avid reader [washingtonpost.com] . Although it is a bitter pill, Obama is carrying on a number of Bush policies since they make sense given the alternatives.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34994524)

he got into yale as a legacy admission, got gentleman C's and is an avid liar, not reader. if you actually think bush is smart, than it is you that is dumb. or did his 8 year reign of disaster where everything he did was a failure not happen?

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994550)

Both Yale and Harvard kept him as a student WELL after the would have let other student go.

Add t that there are plenty of people with average IQ the graduate from both institutions. And getting an MBA? not exactly a tough trick.

His piloting skills where mediocre, when he bothered to show up. and again, flying a fighter takes training, not supreme IQ.

Avid reader? so what. I know a lot of avid readers. It's a pretty meaningless statement in an era where every topic has 1000 authors. Yeah, you have to be a genius to read biographies.

All his responses, action, statements, and decision all indicate average unthinking, non critical IQ.

Some of bush's policies 'worked' but they where the mediocre do business the same old way type of response that ensured the people with the money, kept the money and the other 90% of us get screwed.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994198)

FFS, if he's no good then don't vote for him. If the other celebrity politician is no good, don't vote for them either. Vote for someone else! As long as everyone keeps voting for the same shite politicians, you get the same shite politicians. Is that so hard to understand?

And, as for the argument "But if I don't vote for D, then R may get in office", it's totally moronic and possibly something they invented to narrow down their chances to 50%. Other parties are running for office. People better start paying attention to them, because you can still vote for someone new!

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994278)

I'll probably have to vote for him because the other side will be running some jackass like Palin

There's more than one other side. You can vote Litertarian, Constitution, or Green. If you buy into the unintelligent argument that voting for any other party besides Reps and Dems is a wasted vote, than all those votes for McCain were wasted, because HE LOST and you voted for a loser!!! See the idiocy here?

If you smoke pot you're a fool to vote Democratic or Republican; they both want you in jail. If you're a foe of the media cartels you're almost as much a fool to vote for them, because the MAFIAA owns both parties. A vote for a Democrat or Republican is a vote for multinational corporation control of the government.

Now, if you're a corporatist, Republicans and Democrats are both good choices. If you're for human liberty, neither is.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (5, Informative)

wurble (1430179) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994394)

I would agree with you if we didn't have a first past post system. If we had instant runoff or some other similar multi-vote system, then your theory could work. However in first past post, any third party serves only to act as a spoiler for the party closest to them. As such, libertarians tend to act as spoilers for the Republicans and Green tends to act as spoilers for the Democrats.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (2)

clydemaxwell (935315) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994358)

I should make this a moment for my 'I hate dubya, but he's not dumb' speech, but maybe another time.
It is sad that we can't vote out someone who is as bad a liar as Obama because the alternative is Palin. Obama is a politician -- sneaky, and needing to do different from what he says for his own agenda -- but Palin and her ilk are beyond a joke. They've become a nightmare because people are so divorced from reality that they really think MILF status is enough to become leader of the country (and, historically, the 'free world'). If nobody took Palin seriously we could relax and allow her to return to cheesy joke status, and exile her back to Alaska where she clearly belongs.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (5, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994390)

Nonetheless, I'll probably have to vote for him because the other side will be running some jackass like Palin, Pawlenty or Bachmann, and letting them get within 3 miles of the White House would be disastrous.

People who keep voting for the "lesser of the two evils" are exactly why we keep ending up with politicians who are only slightly better than their competition, but still tremendously corrupt. It is the "third parties have no chance" (not that you necessarily displayed that in your post) attitude that prevents third parties from ever winning, not the fact that they are third parties. Instead of voting for the lesser of the two evils, vote for someone good, and encourage others to do the same so that hopefully we'll be able to break this cycle sometime in the future.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (1, Funny)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993712)

To hire someone whose such an obvious enemy of much of the online community

The "online community" now consists of just about everybody other than your grandparents. And actually in my experience, includes large numbers of grandparents at that. Don't think you're speaking on behalf of "the online community" when you take a position pro-copyright infringement. At least I assume that is the position you are taking when you refer to him as an "enemy"?

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993790)

Actually, my position is more anti-DRM and pro-privacy. I buy every piece of my media legitimately, mind you. So it's not piracy I'm defending--it's my right as a legitimate consumer to be protected from big media companies intruding on my rights and my privacy because they assume I'm a pirate by default (and want to use the government to help them trample on my rights).

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993962)

Problem: if you pay for your media, you are giving financial support to the pro-DRM, anti-privacy MAFIAA.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34994424)

Only if he buys media from the major labels. He probably does, but he definitely does not say so explicitely.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (1)

slackbheep (1420367) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993846)

Yeah and outside of botnets and Facebook how much do we really feel their presence online?

An attorney's view (4, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993938)

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.

Re:An attorney's view (3, Insightful)

Buelldozer (713671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994502)

You're asking us to risk unknowable amounts of damage to the digital freedom of the entire nation for who knows how long on the _hope_ that Mr. Verrilli won't continue to assist his former industry if he becomes Solicitor General. I'm sure it's a sweet deal for Mr. Verrilli but what's the American public getting that makes this risk worthwhile to us?

Frankly, and please don't take this personally, your profession suffers from an image problem and for a variety of very good reasons people don't trust Attorney's. Why should Mr. Verrilli be any different?

No, Mr. Verrilli should be rejected and someone else should be found. Preferably someone without such strong ties to such a litigious and morally corrupt industry.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (1)

jfalcon (163956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993952)

It's because Biden is a known fanboy of the RIAA. It's also one of the major reasons why I didn't vote for the pair.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (5, Informative)

jfalcon (163956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994018)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html [cnet.com] [cnet.com]

"By choosing Joe Biden as their vice presidential candidate, the Democrats have selected a politician with a mixed record on technology who has spent most of his Senate career allied with the FBI and copyright holders, who ranks toward the bottom of CNET's Technology Voters' Guide, and whose anti-privacy legislation was actually responsible for the creation of PGP."

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34994058)

For pities sake do the rest of the world a favour and stop whining, vote for candidates that are pro election finance reform and reform campaign finances so that your politicians are no longer forced to lick the butt cracks of big business.

might could? wtf? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34994070)

+4 Interesting for something written by a grammatically-challenged idiot who actually thinks that "might could" is meaningful.

Re:might could? wtf? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994200)

I was writing my reply and was wondering if you would be offended if I didn't capitalize the "n" in grammar nazi.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34994182)

What did everyone expect? Look at who got him to where he is; Marxist professors, Socialist community organizers, and Organized crime Union bosses. Suckers!

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34994184)

he isn't an enemy of anyone who doesn't help themselevs to copyrighted content.
stop whining and grow up.

The only thing worse than a thief is a self righteous thief with entitlement issues.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (2)

Raven_Stark (747360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994388)

People need to wake up to the reality that most Democrats, almost all Republicans, almost all Tea Baggers and almost all Libertarians who stand any chance of being elected are really members of the same party. They work for the corporations and the elites to suck every one else dry. The differences between them are just theater to distract us from the reality that we do not live in a democracy and they are screwing over us and the rest of the world. It is high time to get serious about organizing against them and taking control.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994420)

First - you'd be surprised how few people in the "online community" actually care about RIAA's rather slimy doings. Those who do care do so with passion -- which makes their numbers seem much larger than they are, especially if you're in the category of those people who care. (Perfect example to demonstrate this: Ron Paul supporters.)

Second: do you think that RIAA lawyers do what they do out of some moral conviction regarding the evils of filesharing? I strongly suspect that they're like people everywhere -- they're paid to do a job, and they do it to the best of their ability.

Obama has made so many missteps, I'd rather see focus on the ones that matter. This one... just not in that category.

Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (1)

Wuhao (471511) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994542)

Why would I want a vicious shark to be an attack dog? It just seems like I either have a suffocating shark, or I was very confused about my requirements when I went looking for an attack dog.

Good thing he's on our side! (0)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993610)

Yep, there's a bit more of that "change" and "hope" from the 2008 campaign. Another corporate weasel appointed to look after corporate interests.

Re:Good thing he's on our side! (1)

memnock (466995) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993724)

This is part of Obama's plan to reach out to business. Because he hasn't done enough to support the corporations.

BOOOOo (1)

Ribbons Almark (1648843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993622)

BOOOOO... Obama should pick a lawyer of the people not a lawyer against the people.

Re:BOOOOo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34993644)

BOOOOO... Obama should pick a lawyer of the people not a lawyer against the people.

A lawyer, by trade, is always going to be against some people.

Re:BOOOOo (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993748)

But a government "for the people" should have an office filled with people who work "for the people", instead of for corporate interests.

There was once a line between Government and Corporation. This line is so blurry now in certain countries, that I think we crossed it a while back.

Re:BOOOOo (1)

spamking (967666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993812)

But a government "for the people" should have an office filled with people who work "for the people", instead of for corporate interests.

There was once a line between Government and Corporation. This line is so blurry now in certain countries, that I think we crossed it a while back.

I think that line got completely erased about the time the Feds starting bailing out corporations . . .

Re:BOOOOo (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993862)

You could have said it was "for the greater good" if you believed in Trickle-down economics (which also gives us the right to laugh at you) - so there is always a bit of blurriness. Always a small hopefully/naive voice in the back of the head which says "The Government cares for us".

Re:BOOOOo (0)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993904)

Lawyers are crooks. Always. Anyways, obama himself is a lawyer....

Re:BOOOOo (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994376)

The people need to pick a government that works for them first, and there's no evidence that's going to happen in this century.

What's the deal with Obama, anyway? (2)

BrunBoot13 (787805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993628)

Does he have a hidden agenda? Was he elected under false pretenses? Is he really a bad guy? I don't think so. I prefer to believe that he's a good guy, overwhelmed with work and following some very bad advice.

Re:What's the deal with Obama, anyway? (3, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993670)

I prefer to believe that he's a good guy, overwhelmed with work and following some very bad advice.

Why?

Re:What's the deal with Obama, anyway? (2)

BrunBoot13 (787805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993826)

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.

Re:What's the deal with Obama, anyway? (2)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993692)

1, he's a politician, and 2, the corporate owned media doesn't hate his guts.

Those are your two biggest clues.

Re:What's the deal with Obama, anyway? (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993722)

Does he have a hidden agenda?

All politicians have a hidden agenda.

Was he elected under false pretenses?

Although lying to your electorate has become standard procedure, you could argue that it is a "false pretense" when you do exactly the opposite of what you promised to do if elected.

Is he really a bad guy?

I've never met him. But anyone smug enough to think they deserve to run an entire country and vicious enough to win is not going to be a "nice guy" by default.

I prefer to believe that he's a good guy

Some people think there was only ever one good guy. And he got nailed to a cross.

Re:What's the deal with Obama, anyway? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994292)

But anyone smug enough to think they deserve to run an entire country and vicious enough to win is not going to be a "nice guy" by default.

true words, my friend. very true words.

I think of a dark-knight (movie) quote about 'it attracts personalities like that'. I do agree that anyone who would *want* to make a career of politics should not be *in* politics.

severe term limits may be the answer, along with removing all economic 'motivations' that come with the office. that would include limits on POST-office time, too. we have to remove the profit motive in order to get more 'pure' applicants. simple as that.

we get people and groups of people that control too much power. that needs to get broken up if anything real is going to change. then we need to redefine the power hierarchy and make it so that the notion of 'checks and balances' *really* is integrated all thru and thru the new system. no single point of contact nor single point of failure.

what we have now is not all thatt different from kings and serfs from hundreds of years ago. not really, its still rich and powerful running things and the little guy not having any real say at all. in this aspect, our system has totally failed us.

Re:What's the deal with Obama, anyway? (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993842)

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.

Re:What's the deal with Obama, anyway? (0)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994072)

Was he elected under false pretenses?

He ran as a Democrat. That means he ran as someone who is committed to the interests of the Entertainment Industry, Unions, and trial lawyers. No one who is not committed to the interests of those three groups can get the Democratic nomination.

The better question to ask would be... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34994362)

...not "What's the deal with Obama?" but rather instead "What's the deal with all you voters who voted for him in the first place?".

Obama's politics were presented and well-known quite clear up front before the election. He's a left-wing, "progressive", socialist-leaning democrat who fully intended to do all the political favors for his cronies that he could possibly get away with and he never pretended to be anything else. None of that was ever "hidden" about him.

What's actually happening here, is that a huge number of you voters who voted for him only thought that you were also liberal and "progressive", because it was the fashionable way to be.... but in harsh reality you are actually discovering some very important things about yourself that you didn't think you were...that you're actually a hell of a lot more conservative deep down inside than you ever thought you'd admit to be.

Now it's time to "come out of that closet."

Trust me, you'll feel much better about yourself once you finally admit to yourself that you prefer a way of life where everyone is expected to exercise personal responsibility, earn your own living instead of suckling on the taxpayers' teet, and the "nanny state" doesn't keep intruding into everyone's lives, and that the government in general is kept as small as possible, and doesn't meddle in private business -- rather the natural market forces of a free economy shall control business' behaviour instead.

Why has Obama suddenly turned pro-business? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993656)

I'm stumped. Maybe Obama thinks this is what the voters want based-upon the November results, but I seriously doubt it.

Re:Why has Obama suddenly turned pro-business? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993772)

What makes you think he really cared then? How is it no one else saw him for the charismatic used car salesman politician he is?

Re:Why has Obama suddenly turned pro-business? (2, Insightful)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993782)

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.

Re:Why has Obama suddenly turned pro-business? (3, Interesting)

twoallbeefpatties (615632) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994270)

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.

Re:Why has Obama suddenly turned pro-business? (2)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994528)

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.

Re:Why has Obama suddenly turned pro-business? (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994104)

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.

Dare to hope... (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993660)

...prepare to be disappointed.

Re:Dare to hope... (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994046)

To be fair, when he said it was "Time for a Change" he didn't specify that it was for your betterment

Equality in front of the law. (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993668)

Whoever said "Justice is Blind" was a real idiot.

"The office also determines which cases it would bring to the Supreme Court for review. "

This'll surely stop moneysharks from randomly suing people without enough evidence.

I voted for Obama (0)

epdp14 (1318641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993678)

so it is doubly disappointing when he acts like George Bush III. Not only do I have to deal with this crap, but I can't help feeling ever so slightly responsible.

Re:I voted for Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34993760)

so it is doubly disappointing when he acts like George Bush III. Not only do I have to deal with this crap, but I can't help feeling ever so slightly responsible.

It's not like you had that many options. Maybe change cannot come from voting alone anymore.

Re:I voted for Obama (0, Offtopic)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993794)

In a speech in Madison, Wis., Obama told his supporters that rallying to his cause was today's equivalent of the "greatest generation" rallying to defeat Hitler and Tojo. Oprah merely calls him, "The One," saying he will help us "evolve to a higher plane."

In his pre-campaign book, "The Audacity of Hope," Barack Obama proclaims, "I find comfort in the fact that the longer I'm in politics the less nourishing popularity becomes, that a striving for rank and fame seems to betray a poverty of ambition, and that I am answerable mainly to the steady gaze of my own conscience." Some might think this odd testimony from a young and inexperienced freshman senator on the cusp of seeking the highest rank, and the most famous position, in the world. It's a bit like a parish priest saying he's happy with his modest lot in life and then declaring he's throwing his hat in the ring to become pope.

But a closer reading reveals a possible explanation. Perhaps he's an adulation junkie. Maybe the diminishing "nourishment" Sen. Obama receives from "popularity" is actually causing him to ratchet up his pursuit of more and more praise just to get the minimal fix he needs. That would account for why a man who thinks striving for popularity is a character flaw has nonetheless decided to give his nomination acceptance speech in a 76,000-seat football stadium.

Or it might tell us why a candidate who hasn't even been nominated yet wants to re-enact some of the most famous scenes from both Reagan and JFK's highlight reels by holding a rally at Germany's Brandenburg Gate, even though he's not a head of state yet. (German authorities, aware of Obama's rock-star status with the German public, diplomatically suggested that it was up to Obama to decide what is in "good taste.") Perhaps Dominic Lawson, writing in the British newspaper The Independent had it right when he recently wrote that Obama is "a man of stunning articulacy, but also stunning self-regard." Last July, Obama explained to reporters that he would eventually overtake Hillary Rodham Clinton in the polls because "to know me is to love me." Some months later, according to The Associated Press' Ron Fournier, he proclaimed, "Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama's been there." Of course, Obama and his surrogates would say he's just being lighthearted, he doesn't really take himself all that seriously. One problem with that interpretation is that there's little evidence that he's interested in dispelling or rebutting the cult of personality he's developed. Obama himself talks of reversing the ocean's tides. The overarching theme to his entire campaign - "We are the ones we've been waiting for," and all that - is that voting for Obama is proof of the cosmic superiority of ... Obama voters.

Take his decision to deliver his acceptance speech at Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver. It seems that the venue for the rest of the Democratic convention - the Pepsi Center (occupancy 21,000) - is just too small. Obama says he wants to give the common folk more "access" to the process. Only a man with an Olympian's sense of entitlement to mass worship could describe such a choreographed descent upon a place called "Mile High" as an effort to bond with the common man. A demigod, it seems, is never so tall as when he stoops to bask in the adoration of the little people.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_6isjHhFs3jYtG9eaH1qtOO;jsessionid=6EAF54E5F76F09B94F03096D9522F398

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34993698)

... is the the Hope, or the Change?

If you voted for Obama... (-1, Troll)

judoguy (534886) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993700)

Vote for a corrupt Fascist, get a corrupt Fascist. Anyone who voted for this jerk and complains is a fool.

Re:If you voted for Obama... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34993766)

vs. McCain?

How's that working for you?

Re:If you voted for Obama... (0)

judoguy (534886) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994022)

The point is "Anyone who voted for this jerk and complains is a fool."

You got what you wanted.

Re:If you voted for Obama... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34993918)

hey, if i didn't vote for the corrupt fascists, the OTHER corrupt fascists might have gotten into office

we can't have that

Re:If you voted for Obama... (3, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994032)

Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.

Re:If you voted for Obama... (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994438)

And don't blame me either, I hate democracy. Overrated big time. Give me a leader with a salad bar of medals and 10 stars on his shoulders. El Presidente knows what's best for me. Might as well IMHO, this charade is becoming one big fucking joke.

Re:If you voted for Obama... (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994130)

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..

Money for nothin' and your chicks for free (1)

shuz (706678) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993702)

Hey, just trying to keep mak'in a few bucks here! Nothing to see here move along, move along.
It would be super though if we saw more people in high government positions that didn't have such a strong history of supporting one view or another. On the other hand is does help the informed voter understand where our government's views are at.

Informed voter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34993754)

the informed voter understand where our government's views are at.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

"Informed voter".... God! You kill me! No, stop it! Stop it! I'm going to shit in my pants!!

And they get informed by watching TV?? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Or by reading internet blogs that are sponsored by big media?! AHAHAHAHAHA!

* shits in pants *

Gotta go.

Shocked, shocked, I tell you (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993718)

So this third Bush Administration term is placing more people with big corporate ties in important positions. Raise your hand if this somehow surprises you when you consider every decision they have made since the 2008 election.

Beyond disappointed in Obama... this is hostile. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34993764)

Enough is enough. I hope we have a serious challenge from the left in 2012. Obama has sold us out. Breaks my heart to say that, but it's true.

What a massive betrayal and a major disappointment to the left he has turned out to be.

Re:Beyond disappointed in Obama... this is hostile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34993956)

Enjoy your Palins in 2012...

Re:Beyond disappointed in Obama... this is hostile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34994062)

and btw-- before the FBI shows up at my house-- the hostility I feel is from him, not towards him. Sheesh.

A better choice than you'd think (2)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993810)

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.

Works! (0)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993912)

Think of the children! Think of all those children who will sleep hungry tonight because you downloaded a 99c mp3 file.

--->

Think of the children! Think of all those children who will be sleep scared tonight because you wouldn't let us squash the big bad evil person into Guantanamo.

Pattern match!

He did no such thing (1)

sirwired (27582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994162)

He was not RIAA's in-house counsel, responsible for all of their litigation strategy. He is a "generic" litigator with a wide-ranging practice. He did happen to represent the RIAA in the Grokster case, which was not, in any way, related to the verifiably insane suits against individuals.

In case you hadn't noticed, when somebody bring a lawsuit, they are going to be represented by somebody, and that somebody does not necessarily agree with the positions they argue on behalf of their client.

Inaccurate Summary (5, Informative)

Grond (15515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34993858)

Verrilli was not, as the summary implies, a lawyer who worked exclusively for the RIAA. Verrilli worked for Jenner & Block [jenner.com] , 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 [google.com] , 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.

Re:Inaccurate Summary (1)

kaellinn18 (707759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994416)

I would mod you up informative, but I have no mod points. Thanks for the info!

Re:Inaccurate Summary (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994440)

He led the case against Grokster, and according to Wired he also led the Viacom vs. YouTube case! While I'm sure his career extends to other things as well, those are two of the largest copyright cases of recent years.

Re:Inaccurate Summary (1)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994456)

Thanks Grond! This is genuinely useful information. I am better for knowing it.

I have no mod points today and you're already at a (5, Informative), so this is all I can offer you for your quick and thorough work.

So? (5, Insightful)

mopomi (696055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994034)

So, someone represented a company that has different ideas than you do...and that's a problem because?
Do /.ers really believe that their employer is their sole identity defining characteristic?
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.

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994538)

Are all of you who work for asshole-bosses also assholes?

A lot of them are, yes.

What does this mean? (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994044)

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.

Re:What does this mean? (5, Informative)

Grond (15515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994216)

His specialty is copyright law.

Not particularly. As you can see from the Wayback Machine copy of his Jenner & Block profile [archive.org] , "Mr. Verrilli concentrates his practice on Supreme Court and appellate litigation, telecommunications, and First Amendment and media litigation....Mr. Verrilli has argued many cases in the federal courts of appeals and in state supreme courts on a range of issues, including cases involving copyright, constitutional law (involving the First Amendment, the Takings Clause and the Bill of Attainder Clause), statutory construction, administrative law and criminal law....He is an adjunct professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he has taught First Amendment law for the past 14 years."

Copyright and media litigation were only a small part of a wide-ranging practice.

What is wrong with you people? (5, Insightful)

sirwired (27582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994230)

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?"

Minor correction... (2)

sirwired (27582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994306)

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.

Re:What is wrong with you people? (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994360)

Donald, is that you?

Cocksucker (0)

retech (1228598) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994332)

Seriously Obama, at least give head to these guys in private so we don't have to watch you do it on the news. It's embarrassing for you and, frankly, stomach turning for us.

All Obama Lefties (1)

MrHyd3 (19709) | more than 3 years ago | (#34994348)

Reap what you sow. Corporate Crony-ism

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?