You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #30: I have read it, and it is disgusting. And yes I actually understand [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. I have read it, and it is disgusting. And yes I actually understand
it. I used to do research for my parents law firm. I also showed it to my BF, who is a lawyer and this isn't really defensible , but have it your way. I guess those of us who do NOT support this effort must all be "haters" or ignorant. The Buck stops at the vatican, whose soverignity is only symbolic, and prevents us from prosecuting them when they arrange to transport pedophiles anf other criminals. Whooppe.We should be very proud of that brief. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Obama admin. backs Vaticans claim of immunity to sexual abuse lawsuits (ENABLER!) babsbunny  May-25-10 05:21 PM   #0 
  - I only reced this because everyone should see this  Angry Dragon   May-25-10 05:27 PM   #1 
  - Ok, now I know I'm done with this administration. Can't stomach this. Decades of abuse and nothing?  MichiganVote   May-25-10 05:28 PM   #2 
  - You should read the whole article. It's not as uncomplicated as it seems.  Maraya1969   May-26-10 11:07 PM   #145 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   May-25-10 05:42 PM   #3 
  - how many catholics are on the supreme court?  madrchsod   May-25-10 05:44 PM   #4 
  - The Court ordered the Solicitor to the Interest section of the brief.  msanthrope   May-25-10 07:22 PM   #44 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   May-25-10 05:46 PM   #5 
  - what a wonderful leader  RainDog   May-25-10 05:55 PM   #6 
  - DoublePlusProgressive eom  ShortnFiery   May-25-10 05:56 PM   #7 
  - a great man. an inspiring man  RainDog   May-25-10 05:58 PM   #9 
  - Where in the brief does he do that? Specifically?  msanthrope   May-25-10 07:31 PM   #50 
  - So anyone who doesn't  nichomachus   May-26-10 11:39 AM   #123 
     - Right, because asking for proof of an assertion means I 'worship'  msanthrope   May-26-10 12:54 PM   #125 
  - Why are you attacking him as a man? It's the his justice department.  tranche   May-25-10 10:02 PM   #99 
  - the pope should be tried at the hague  madrchsod   May-25-10 05:58 PM   #8 
  - Primacy of the state  nadinbrzezinski   May-25-10 05:59 PM   #10 
  - deleted  redqueen   May-25-10 06:00 PM   #12 
  - and aren't we lucky to have such an inspiring man leading the way  RainDog   May-25-10 06:01 PM   #13 
  - It is not about the Pope  nadinbrzezinski   May-25-10 06:03 PM   #16 
     - and this is where this nation jumps the shark, imo  RainDog   May-25-10 06:11 PM   #20 
     - Don't forget kidnapping the head of state of Panama and bringing him to  RC   May-25-10 07:06 PM   #37 
        - +1  Heywood J   May-26-10 10:17 AM   #121 
           - This is a civil suit  jberryhill   May-26-10 06:43 PM   #138 
              - Why are you injecting fact, reason, and logic? Jeebus....  msanthrope   May-26-10 10:51 PM   #143 
              - Why are you injecting fact, reason, and logic? Jeebus....  msanthrope   May-26-10 10:51 PM   #144 
     - Does he also head a church??  Angry Dragon   May-25-10 09:01 PM   #88 
  - yup.. that dawned on me as soon as i posted mine...  madrchsod   May-25-10 06:01 PM   #14 
  - Nope, if he did  nadinbrzezinski   May-25-10 06:04 PM   #17 
  - nation states that provide cover for pedophiles should be weakened n/t  RainDog   May-25-10 06:04 PM   #18 
  - This is what this is about  nadinbrzezinski   May-25-10 06:09 PM   #19 
     - they should "face the music."  RainDog   May-25-10 06:14 PM   #21 
        - This is NOT JUST about the United States sady  nadinbrzezinski   May-25-10 06:17 PM   #23 
           - I would love to see the Pope in Den Hague  RainDog   May-25-10 06:21 PM   #25 
           - nadia - do you think the U.S. would have filed such a brief on behalf of Saddam Hussein? n/t  RainDog   May-25-10 06:32 PM   #29 
              - You do realize that the Court ordered the US to file, right?  msanthrope   May-25-10 07:00 PM   #35 
              - Yep this is one of the treaties at play  nadinbrzezinski   May-25-10 08:53 PM   #82 
              - You realize we were the prosecutors by  nadinbrzezinski   May-25-10 08:52 PM   #81 
              - Iraq is a designated FSIA exception  jberryhill   May-27-10 12:23 AM   #148 
  - The Vatican is a state, and the pope the head of state. It's good being king.  alfredo   May-25-10 06:15 PM   #22 
  - Or President or Prime Minister  nadinbrzezinski   May-25-10 06:18 PM   #24 
     - Sovereign immunity?  alfredo   May-25-10 07:53 PM   #62 
        - Yep  nadinbrzezinski   May-25-10 08:51 PM   #80 
           - Kind of like being a CEO of an oil company  alfredo   May-25-10 09:29 PM   #95 
              - Not quite the same but functionally yes  nadinbrzezinski   May-25-10 09:56 PM   #97 
                 - True. Here's a video of the event I mentioned above.  alfredo   May-25-10 10:29 PM   #101 
  - I posted a response to this  Angry Dragon   May-25-10 09:00 PM   #85 
  - Religious fantasies, totally unprovable - rely solely on "faith" - and are destroying the world  slay   May-25-10 06:00 PM   #11 
  - for gosh sakes, the US, a non-religious state, recently killed a million people in iraq &  Hannah Bell   May-26-10 02:30 AM   #113 
  - The US may CLAIM not to be a religions state - but we all know USA is run by Christians  slay   May-26-10 04:14 PM   #131 
  - I agree and so, it is said, does a guy named Jesus in "My kingdom is not of this world" and churches  patrice   May-26-10 05:32 PM   #135 
     - I believe  slay   May-26-10 07:18 PM   #140 
        - Me too. The sooner, the better and I'm fortunate enough to be working  patrice   May-26-10 08:46 PM   #142 
  - SHAME!  Odin2005   May-25-10 06:01 PM   #15 
  - What chess move is this?  Starry Messenger   May-25-10 06:21 PM   #26 
  - it's the one where children remain the pawns of the powerful n/t  RainDog   May-25-10 06:47 PM   #31 
     - Ah, the defenders have arrived.  Starry Messenger   May-25-10 07:18 PM   #41 
        - Because posts are not required to meet the rule of "constructive criticism" in cases of Republicans  SemiCharmedQuark   May-25-10 07:21 PM   #43 
        - How handy n/t  Starry Messenger   May-25-10 07:29 PM   #48 
           - Yes, this site "Democratic Underground" is interested in looking at facts regarding Democrats  SemiCharmedQuark   May-25-10 07:31 PM   #49 
              - Well SCQ  Starry Messenger   May-25-10 07:36 PM   #53 
                 - I'm wondering why you haven't responded to misanthropes post about what, specifically, you challenge  SemiCharmedQuark   May-25-10 07:39 PM   #54 
                 - I have her on ignore.  Starry Messenger   May-25-10 07:40 PM   #55 
                    - Well then I will ask you. What, specifically, do you dislike about the brief?  SemiCharmedQuark   May-25-10 07:44 PM   #58 
                    - When was rawstory a Rense loving website?  Starry Messenger   May-25-10 07:54 PM   #66 
                       - I am talking about DU in general as we were discussing in your last post.  SemiCharmedQuark   May-25-10 07:59 PM   #71 
                          - Did I rec that thread yesterday?  Starry Messenger   May-25-10 08:05 PM   #74 
                             - I suppose you're right. I apologize  SemiCharmedQuark   May-25-10 08:08 PM   #76 
                    - Of course you do--I tend to ask questions you don't wanna answer. n/t  msanthrope   May-25-10 07:54 PM   #65 
                 - I hope you'll pardon me, but I don't see how going after this sort of thing the way people do around  patrice   May-26-10 06:05 PM   #137 
        - Defenders? Merely people who can read a brief. Tell me, what part of said brief  msanthrope   May-25-10 07:26 PM   #46 
  - In context, the part quoted in the OP is not what the objection was about by the Solicitor General..  FrenchieCat   May-25-10 06:22 PM   #27 
  - I have read it, and it is disgusting. And yes I actually understand  saracat   May-25-10 06:45 PM   #30 
  - What specifically about the brief of the Solicitor General is incorrect?  msanthrope   May-25-10 06:54 PM   #33 
     - Interesting. You jumped to the conclusion I meant "boyfriend" I didn't. BF means best friend  saracat   May-25-10 07:57 PM   #69 
        - Actually, 'BF' has always meant 'butt-fuck' to me, I was trying to be nice.  msanthrope   May-25-10 08:16 PM   #77 
           - .The Vatican claims statehood and sovereignty in its entitlement to diplomatic immunity.  saracat   May-25-10 08:47 PM   #79 
              - Okay...but what does that have to do with this case? It's not an issue raised. n/t  msanthrope   May-25-10 10:03 PM   #100 
                 - It is the issue that should have been raised. That is the point.  saracat   May-26-10 12:10 AM   #107 
                    - Talk to the Plaintiffs, then...the SG can only brief on what's been presented. n/t  msanthrope   May-26-10 12:25 AM   #108 
                       - Actually, they could have argued against this. Using that as an argument . But they didn't.  saracat   May-26-10 12:32 AM   #109 
                          - I'm sure that in your world that's true. But in the land where the lawyers live,  msanthrope   May-26-10 01:14 AM   #110 
                             - Oh please do you seriously think to impress by throwing the Latern Treaty and  saracat   May-26-10 01:58 AM   #112 
                                - Um, Section1605 (a) (5) of FSIA is the statute in dispute. So my citing of the statute isn't to  msanthrope   May-26-10 08:54 AM   #118 
                                   - I believe I did address this issue and I also stated that perhaps this might not be the case to  saracat   May-26-10 02:33 PM   #129 
                                      - I've encapsulated your legal strategy:  msanthrope   May-26-10 04:43 PM   #132 
                                         - Whatever.We disagree.  saracat   May-26-10 07:32 PM   #141 
                                            - "Whatever." Certainly.....and thank you. n/t  msanthrope   May-27-10 12:10 AM   #147 
  - What if it was your child who was raped by this priest?  freddie mertz   May-25-10 07:41 PM   #56 
     - What if a lynch mob were at your door because of something you did,  FrenchieCat   May-25-10 08:42 PM   #78 
     - What does a lynch mob have to with it?  freddie mertz   May-26-10 07:48 AM   #115 
     - I'd still be subject to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act  treestar   May-25-10 10:35 PM   #104 
        - Seems the scope of the law is in dispute before the court.  freddie mertz   May-26-10 07:50 AM   #116 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   May-25-10 06:28 PM   #28 
  - The Vatican, yes; individuals, no  Retrograde   May-25-10 06:51 PM   #32 
  - The brief of the Solicitor doesn't foreclose the finding of no immunity--  msanthrope   May-25-10 06:57 PM   #34 
     - so, you think this would have gone down this way if Saddam was the one facing charges?  RainDog   May-25-10 07:00 PM   #36 
        - Yes. See Iraq v. Beaty, which SCOTUS handed down last year. 9-0.  msanthrope   May-25-10 07:14 PM   #38 
           - my apologies, then. I detest the pope. n/t  RainDog   May-25-10 07:15 PM   #39 
           - So do I. Sometimes, when you argue the law, you end up aiding the despicable. n/t  msanthrope   May-25-10 07:20 PM   #42 
           - Thanks for explaining it.  SemiCharmedQuark   May-25-10 07:16 PM   # 
           - You are welcome. n/t  msanthrope   May-25-10 07:28 PM   #47 
           - Many are reading and not commenting  HughMoran   May-25-10 08:57 PM   #84 
              - Thank you--I appreciate that. n/t  msanthrope   May-25-10 09:27 PM   #94 
  - Accountability under the law is anathema to this administration  depakid   May-25-10 07:16 PM   #40 
  - so with breathless fake-ass outrage, you insinuate obama himself defends pedophilia.  dionysus   May-25-10 07:35 PM   #52 
  - I think the sense of having no shame belongs to those who protect torturers, banksters, fraudsters  depakid   May-25-10 07:47 PM   #60 
     - well, you managed to fit every juvenile cliched keyword into that post for sure.  dionysus   May-25-10 07:49 PM   #61 
     - Managed to list as many institutional criminals as I could think of- who've walked away scot free  depakid   May-25-10 07:54 PM   #64 
        - i'd like to focus on your blithe insinuation the obama administration is deliberately shielding  dionysus   May-25-10 07:56 PM   #68 
           - That's your inference- not any "insinuation" on my part  depakid   May-25-10 08:04 PM   #73 
              - your post would indicate you agreed with the notion  dionysus   May-25-10 08:07 PM   #75 
     - Were they supposed to ignore a Court order and not reply?  msanthrope   May-25-10 08:00 PM   #72 
  - What's the law?  treestar   May-25-10 10:34 PM   #103 
  - IF the perp is acting alone. If the perp is part of an organized group,  closeupready   May-26-10 08:56 AM   #119 
  - dupe  depakid   May-25-10 07:23 PM   #45 
  - Then let us declare war on them, invade them, and hold them accountable.  TexasObserver   May-25-10 07:31 PM   #51 
  - As a "bitter" ex-Catholic, I could sign up for that.  freddie mertz   May-25-10 07:42 PM   #57 
     - As a recovering depressed - former Catholic, I've got your back.  ShortnFiery   May-25-10 07:53 PM   #63 
     - We could overthrow the old hierarchy and replace it with human beings.  freddie mertz   May-25-10 07:54 PM   #67 
     - I like the idea of making it a museum/amusement park.  TexasObserver   May-25-10 07:58 PM   #70 
  - awful  Liberal_in_LA   May-25-10 07:46 PM   #59 
  - read  HughMoran   May-25-10 08:56 PM   #83 
     - I think folks got exhausted of reading after election 2008.......  FrenchieCat   May-25-10 09:01 PM   #87 
        - Just skimming the thread and reading salient posts is all that's needed too  HughMoran   May-25-10 09:05 PM   #89 
           - Why bother to read, when one can scream.  FrenchieCat   May-25-10 09:16 PM   #92 
  - It's a blatant bow to unbridled power.  burnsei sensei   May-25-10 09:01 PM   #86 
  - The legalities argued had nothing to do with the priest,  FrenchieCat   May-25-10 09:05 PM   #90 
     - So it's like a statute of limitations.  burnsei sensei   May-25-10 09:20 PM   #93 
        - I believe that it is the Job of the Solicitor General to point out when  FrenchieCat   May-25-10 09:31 PM   #96 
  - Unrec for ignorance of the law.  Luminous Animal   May-25-10 09:07 PM   #91 
  - Whose ignorance of what law?  inna   May-27-10 12:01 AM   #146 
  - I think this is a classic case where the United States should start treating the Vatican as a...  Cleobulus   May-25-10 10:02 PM   #98 
  - Sad to say. I tend to agree. We should at least threaten them with sanctions.nt.  freddie mertz   May-26-10 07:52 AM   #117 
  - I guess it would be too dull to discuss the Foreign Sovereign Immunities act  treestar   May-25-10 10:33 PM   #102 
  - In that case (if we count the Vatican a country) can the Priests be tried for crimes against  JCMach1   May-26-10 12:06 AM   #105 
  - Christ, I'd settle for someone reading the fucking brief.  msanthrope   May-26-10 01:29 AM   #111 
  - School us  Mushroom   May-26-10 05:36 PM   #136 
  - People here are intentionally obscuring the actual legal issue in contention  jberryhill   May-26-10 05:10 PM   #133 
  - Yuck. Just yuck,  krabigirl   May-26-10 12:07 AM   #106 
  - Holy shit.  BlueIris   May-26-10 02:51 AM   #114 
  - What part of the brief do you find offensive?  msanthrope   May-26-10 08:58 AM   #120 
  - Hey  femrap   May-26-10 11:28 AM   #122 
  - Admistrative power will always support each other. It is a given.  robinblue   May-26-10 12:49 PM   #124 
  - "Legality" is a pitiful absolution (nt)  whatchamacallit   May-26-10 01:54 PM   #126 
  - One term Obama  Hawkowl   May-26-10 02:22 PM   #127 
  - No, he will be re-elected. The GOP is in such disarray... and liberals have no where to go  liberation   May-26-10 05:31 PM   #134 
  - Why did the Ninth Circuit court of appeals allow the lawsuit to proceed?  Better Believe It   May-26-10 02:24 PM   #128 
  - Wow. Every day brings something new.  inna   May-26-10 03:15 PM   #130 
  - I would remove my Obama sticker from my car over this.  harry_pothead   May-26-10 06:46 PM   #139 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC