Still given the choice you had of McCain / Obama, I think Obama was the right pick. But I’m surprised that people are surprised by this, in my experience its more important to note who a politicians financial backers are then to listen to what he says.

Remember guys – it’s usually *not* the lawyer’s fault, their ethical system *demands* they pull the stunts they do. The problem is the people who are paying the lawyers to pull these stunts…

Do we have *any* reason to believe that these lawyers will continue mouthing the official RIAA line, if/when they’re being paid by the DoJ to follow a different party line?

You mean “Change!”â„¢

You mean “Change!”â„¢

quote:

Do we have *any* reason to believe that these lawyers will continue mouthing the official RIAA line, if/when they’re being paid by the DoJ to follow a different party line?

Because Government jobs always pay better than Industry, and appointees like this never pedal influence?

The only way they’ll get a better price than the RIAA is for all the file traders to bribe them with their savings from all the free media.

As the hype about Obama & change fades, reality sets in.

Welcome to the Chicago Political Machine.

Now THAT would be interesting.

-O. W. Kenobi

#22: Off-topic nitpick – Anakin was supposed to bring balance to the Force. Balance… during a period so dominated by good Jedi that the bad Jedi were stuff of memory. What the hell did they think balance meant?

Exactly. He would’ve appointed somebody internet savvy, like one of his stormfront.org supporters.

The MPAA seems stuck in stone, but it seems to me like the RIAA is growing and evolving.

This is what some seek to outlaw (well not if you ask permission and pay $$ first, eh?):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luVjkTEIoJc

yeah it is dangerous, this “violation” of “copy-don’t”…

Innocent until proven guilty is our code of law, not the other way around. I will continue to feel confident about my vote until proven wrong. The guy’s doing a shockingly great job already.

From the Bar Standards Board Code of Conduct:

601. A barrister who supplies advocacy services must not withhold those services:
(a) on the ground that the nature of the case is objectionable to him or to any section of the public;
(b) on the ground that the conduct opinions or beliefs of the prospective client are unacceptable to him or to any section of the public;
…
602. A self-employed barrister must comply with the ‘Cab-rank rule’ and accordingly except only as otherwise provided in paragraphs 603 604 605 and 606 he must in any field in which he professes to practise in relation to work appropriate to his experience and seniority and irrespective of whether his client is paying privately or is publicly funded:
(a) accept any brief to appear before a Court in which he professes to practise;
(b) accept any instructions;
(c) act for any person on whose behalf he is instructed;
and do so irrespective of (i) the party on whose behalf he is instructed (ii) the nature of the case and (iii) any belief or opinion which he may have formed as to the character reputation cause conduct guilt or innocence of that person.

(The name for this comes from the rule that a London licensed taxi cab must take the next person waiting for it, no matter who they are or where, within reason, they want to go.)

And, as others have already noted, lawyers are ethically obligated to zealously represent their clients, irrespective of their own personal ideology or opinions on the matter. The ethical standards apply to *all* lawyers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, trial lawyers, whatever. I personally have a pretty hard time reading all that much into the new DoJ picks based purely on their lists of previous clients.

Especially given the other priorities I certainly hope are at work in the selection process for the DoJ regarding issues like torture, illegal surveillance of American citizens, and indefinite detention without a legal determination of guilt.

Never criticize a half-baked cake. It all looks like good anyway.