Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
103. HORRIFYING: SOLICITER GENERAL DOES HIS JOB
Tue Apr 1, 2014, 04:57 AM
Apr 2014

The protesters have a case (a pretty good one, for that matter) against the US.

Verrilli's job is to present the strongest opposing case. He is doing that.

WTF is this? Autumn Mar 2014 #1
What a world we live in. Baitball Blogger Mar 2014 #12
"More likely, they would disguise themselves as a right-wing supporter" Martin Eden Mar 2014 #52
Maybe SamKnause Mar 2014 #2
Everything not forbidden is compulsory. n/t malthaussen Mar 2014 #5
Protesting is illegal, doncha know? Scuba Mar 2014 #3
Protesting against the bushes was illegal. fasttense Mar 2014 #49
+100 SoapBox Mar 2014 #53
I hear ya. So why do you thik the Obama admin is backing Bush here? Scuba Mar 2014 #68
I wish I knew. fasttense Mar 2014 #75
The GOP are so extreme that... Rockyj Mar 2014 #79
Yes, you are right he is a moderate RepubliCON by today's standards. fasttense Apr 2014 #107
Telling it like it is in a radically right-wing-controlled society featuring a radically indepat Mar 2014 #65
And yet, Le Taz Hot Mar 2014 #4
deja vu G_j Mar 2014 #6
You Better Believe It! LOL at the WSWS link. I'll wait for the real story. FSogol Mar 2014 #7
I suppose you will have a complaint about the ACLU ink also. former9thward Mar 2014 #9
pretty clear G_j Mar 2014 #13
Ain't believin' it til I sees it on Fox. Jackpine Radical Mar 2014 #16
Those are the same secret service agents that party drunk with prostitutes? NV Whino Mar 2014 #21
+Yep. Shame, shame on... can't get fooled again. nt tridim Mar 2014 #10
So you cant refute the article and you dont have an opinion one way rhett o rick Mar 2014 #14
What about the link is incorrect? We have the real story. Whenever the Left peacefully protests sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #24
Where is it incorrect? Show me another source that shows the Obama admin asked for this to be FSogol Mar 2014 #26
The corporate media is a 'legitimate source'? Since when do you totally accept what sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #32
my favorite part of your preferred WaPo story: Enrique Mar 2014 #44
I'm unclear on your point... you seem to be implying this is a made up story.. 2banon Mar 2014 #70
Someone already showed you another source. cui bono Mar 2014 #91
Should I go back in time and change what I wrote 9 hours ago? FSogol Mar 2014 #94
Well I haven't see a post by you acknowledging it. And you kept denying it well after the first post cui bono Mar 2014 #95
I feel really bad for you. FSogol Mar 2014 #97
does Reuters count as a real story? Enrique Mar 2014 #34
it depends on what it says, obviously Warren Stupidity Mar 2014 #63
how about Nina Totenberg, dear? because NPR did a long piece about this dogshit casez cali Mar 2014 #89
The "real" story was posted in response to you. What say you now? cui bono Mar 2014 #90
The same thing I said before: using wsws.org as a source on a so-called "Democratic" website sucks. FSogol Mar 2014 #96
The ol +1, FSogol~ Cha Apr 2014 #104
But, they love what it says.. it's A-Okay! Cha Apr 2014 #102
I am confused as to how to proceed.... truebrit71 Mar 2014 #8
Follow the lead of the poster above who attacks the source rather than the content n2doc Mar 2014 #11
Surely you can find a credible piece than wsws.org? FSogol Mar 2014 #15
How about fucking REUTERS? n2doc Mar 2014 #17
You should have lead with the Reuter's link and not wsws.org crap. FSogol Mar 2014 #18
So the wsws link was correct. I have found that to be the case regarding that site more often than sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #33
So killing the messenger didn't work for you LondonReign2 Mar 2014 #76
From the Reuters link SomethingFishy Mar 2014 #85
Just read your yahoo link. No mention of the Obama admin asking for FSogol Mar 2014 #27
Right here "backed by the administration of President Barack Obama, had appealed that ruling." Jesus Malverde Mar 2014 #30
Doesn't matter what any of you post Rex Mar 2014 #78
Constantly repeating your denials doesn't make them legit. You are ignoring the facts cui bono Mar 2014 #92
Exactly. The re-education classes are working! loudsue Mar 2014 #23
This is how you are supposed to proceed. You are supposed to attack the source!! sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #25
Unfortunately for you, your liberal leanings Ed Suspicious Mar 2014 #56
Here's this piece in WaPo but it doesn't mention the Obama Admin justiceischeap Mar 2014 #19
Wow, imagine that! n/t FSogol Mar 2014 #20
Here you go: sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #29
so the source which excludes that information is better? Enrique Mar 2014 #37
that shows the value of the WSWS Enrique Mar 2014 #35
No...the Obama administration is defending the two Secret Service agents who appealed. WsWS sucks, msanthrope Mar 2014 #39
WSWS more than thoroughly covers the government's argument Enrique Mar 2014 #41
No...the constitutional issue won't be reached if qualified immunity is found. That's what makes msanthrope Mar 2014 #43
they are competing Enrique Mar 2014 #45
No....they are not 'competing.' This is basic legal procedure you learn on the first msanthrope Mar 2014 #46
Besides, the way I read some of Scalia's statements justiceischeap Mar 2014 #61
Exactly..because it's an SS case, I think it makes a poor 1st amendment one. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #62
I see a post is hidden that got a little carried away with the knee jerk Obama hate.. Cha Apr 2014 #100
Post removed Post removed Mar 2014 #22
Well, we have to "look forward", whistle a happy tune, and think beautiful thoughts. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #28
Say what? Newsjock Mar 2014 #31
Excellent! I thank you and Mr. Pitt thanks you! Divernan Mar 2014 #55
LOL. bvar22 Mar 2014 #84
Yeah, these fuckers like it too.. Cha Apr 2014 #99
Unrec for a shitty source that ineptly describes the legal issues at hand. Here's the link to the msanthrope Mar 2014 #36
i wasn't aware of that standard Enrique Mar 2014 #38
I'm always suspicious when agenda driven reporting doesn't give a link to the primary source...and msanthrope Mar 2014 #40
they gave the name of the case, "Wood v. Moss" Enrique Mar 2014 #42
Bias against the favorite source of banned troll of Hannah Bell? You Better Believe It! nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #47
If you expected better on this board ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #58
What would the reaction be here if the Secret Service re-routed President Obama away from Tea Party onenote Mar 2014 #48
Rerouted the president and removed the protesters Ed Suspicious Mar 2014 #60
Let no bad deed go punished. L0oniX Mar 2014 #50
Sometimes, when they make their authoritarian, bushco Ed Suspicious Mar 2014 #51
Let's be clear about what is being addressed with this lawsuit. Maedhros Mar 2014 #54
^this^ Whilst others kvetch about the source ^this^ hits the nail on the head.. truebrit71 Mar 2014 #57
I remember when people were being excluded from Bush's campaign events because they wore Maedhros Mar 2014 #71
That is NOT what is being addressed with the lawsuit ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #66
I understand the legal rhetoric being used to undermine the First Amendment here. Maedhros Mar 2014 #69
Standing and Jurisdiction are more than mere "legal rhetoric." eom. 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #72
no, that is not correct Enrique Mar 2014 #77
How about you actually read the argument before the Court ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #80
wsws edited the actual exchange between plaintiff's counsel, Roberts, and Scalia onenote Mar 2014 #81
and every other story edited that WHOLE exchange out Enrique Mar 2014 #88
I guess it depends on where you choose to look onenote Apr 2014 #105
Here is a link from the tomg Mar 2014 #59
please only use reputable sources Enrique Mar 2014 #64
ROFL! truebrit71 Mar 2014 #73
+1. About DU: "Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter" Catherina Mar 2014 #74
LOL! City Lights Mar 2014 #86
Baloney.. you damn well it's RT and firedoglake. Cha Apr 2014 #101
wsws.org LOL... SidDithers Mar 2014 #67
the President does NOT urge the supreme court. eom. spanone Mar 2014 #82
His DoJ does. n/t cui bono Mar 2014 #93
K & R, bookmarked. n/t Raksha Mar 2014 #83
President Obama is all about freedom. Enthusiast Mar 2014 #87
Is Obama joining team BFEE after he leaves office? n/t PowerToThePeople Mar 2014 #98
HORRIFYING: SOLICITER GENERAL DOES HIS JOB Recursion Apr 2014 #103
The Obama Adminstration backing tromping Consitutional Rights? 99Forever Apr 2014 #106
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama administration urge...»Reply #103