Obama Nominates RIAA Lawyer For Solicitor General 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."
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:3, Insightful)
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:What's the deal with Obama, anyway? (Score:4, Insightful)
I prefer to believe that he's a good guy, overwhelmed with work and following some very bad advice.
Why?
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
You assume people stop being corrupt greed-mongers when they switch jobs. Funny guy!
Re:What's the deal with Obama, anyway? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Why has Obama suddenly turned pro-business? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
An attorney's view (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:2, Insightful)
(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:If you voted for Obama... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
What does this mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is wrong with you people? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?"
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:An attorney's view (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are all of you who work for asshole-bosses also assholes?
A lot of them are, yes.
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:3, Insightful)
But the fact that he's a former RIAA lawyer has nothing to do with that. If, as you claim, the US government will be pushing their solicitor general to file amicus curiae briefs in support of the RIAA (a contention that I strongly disagree with, but will support for the sake of argument) then whoever gets put in that job will be asked to do so. Hiring an ex RIAA lawyer really doesn't speak to that point at all. The fact is, he was hired for the exact same reason the RIAA hired him, he's a damn good lawyer.
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
If people start voting their principles, then third parties may only get 5% this year, but that makes it easier to get 6% next year. When people see it's rising, more people vote for it. Then you've got 7%, which encourages more people to vote. Then one year, you wake up and you've changed things.
If America is worth fighting for, then accept it's going to take more than one battle. If you lose a few, it doesn't matter because you're gaining ground. You have to try.
Re:yes it does (Score:3, Insightful)
I still believe that he honestly thought he would be able to accomplish everything he was saying on the campaign trail in 2007-2008...but then once he was elected, he realized how impossible that would be.
Not saying that's right, I'm just saying that he did seem truly genuine back then.
Re:yes it does (Score:4, Insightful)
As a foreigner watching US politics with interest, I have to agree. What bothers me is that he doesn't even seem to be trying to improve things. He hasn't fought very hard for anything, and he's backpedalled (preemptively!) on many HUGE issues like closing Guantanamo Bay.
It's an uphill battle, no doubt, and he's facing some relatively popular whack-job Republicans, but dammit, he needs to FIGHT a bit.
Don't confuse legal arguments with personal belief (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
The only logical ways out of the trap are either break the two party lock by voting for someone else, or reject the current democratic process.
False dichotomy. You can also work within the system to any number of varying degrees, which involves being willing to compromise.
I actually think your post is indicative of a huge problem in American politics today. More and more people are advocating a rejection of democracy when they don't get their way.
Re:yes it does (Score:1, Insightful)
You then are not ignorant. I do though question your thinking skills.
Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering recent international treaty negotiations (ACTA) I think it's fair to say the US Government has strong feelings on issues re: RIAA.
I think this appointment supports that premise.
Re:What's the deal with Obama, anyway? (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:Bush spoke more intelligently (Score:4, Insightful)
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).