Obama administration urges Supreme Court to dismiss suit brought by anti-Bush demonstrators

[n2doc]

By Eric London
31 March 2014
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments last Wednesday in connection with a civil suit filed by anti-Bush protesters who were forcibly removed and sequestered by police and Secret Service agents during a presidential visit to Jacksonville, Oregon in 2004.

The case, Wood v. Moss, reached the Supreme Court after the Obama administration appealed from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in 2012 that the demonstrators’ claims met certain legal standards and should therefore proceed to trial.

The administration has sought to prevent the case from going to trial, and so the question before the Supreme Court is whether the plaintiffs’ claims are sufficiently “plausible” to advance past the government’s request for the court to throw the case out entirely.

The outcome of the case bears important implications for the First Amendment, as shown by an examination of the case’s factual background. In October 2004—the month before that year’s presidential election—President Bush’s visit to the small town of Jacksonville sparked demonstrations, pro and anti. Two to three hundred anti-Bush demonstrators were exercising their right to free speech on Jacksonville’s main thoroughfare, while a similarly sized group of pro-Bush demonstrators gathered nearby.

more
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/31/cour-m31.html

[Autumn]

1. WTF is this?

The Obama administration, however, is arguing that the decision to quarantine the anti-Bush protesters was necessary as a measure of “national security,” implying that peaceful anti-Bush demonstrators might have hurled a bomb or otherwise threatened the president’s life.

[Baitball Blogger]

12. What a world we live in.

If I recall, people were not even able to carry signs back then. And, it is just the pinnacle of stupid to assume that someone who would hurl a bomb would walk into one of those gatherings as a protestor. More likely, they would disguise themselves as a right-wing supporter or one of the helpers of the event.

[Martin Eden]

52. "More likely, they would disguise themselves as a right-wing supporter"

Exactly what I was thinking when I read the article.

A serious assassin would definitely seek to blend in with the pro-Bush crowd.

[SamKnause]

2. Maybe

we the people need a list of exactly just what is NOT a threat to to national security.

The list would be long.

It seems everything is a threat to national security.

The Obama administration is bending over backwards to protect the Bush administration.

Looking forward not backwards is not working out well for the 99%.

[malthaussen]

5. Everything not forbidden is compulsory. n/t

[Scuba]

3. Protesting is illegal, doncha know?

Now shut up and get back in line.

[fasttense]

49. Protesting against the bushes was illegal.

"When Bush decided to eat dinner at a nearby restaurant, local police and Secret Service agents began ordering the removal of the anti-Bush protesters, who, they claimed, were disturbing Bush with antiwar chants as he ate his meal. The anti-Bush demonstrators were first moved one block away, then two blocks, while the pro-Bush demonstrators were allowed to remain at their initial location close to the president.

Such efforts to arrest and sequester anti-Bush demonstrators were a regular tactic of the Bush administration, which arrested workers, students and several grandmothers for carrying signs outside of so-called “free speech zones.”"

Yet anti-abortion crazies are allowed to stand outside a clinic to throw bombs and insults at the women entering, even though these same anti-abortion groups have been linked to bombings and murders. Young women wanting abortions face more risk than the bushes ever did.

[SoapBox]

53. +100

[Scuba]

68. I hear ya. So why do you thik the Obama admin is backing Bush here?

[fasttense]

75. I wish I knew.

Obama takes up the crazy conservative banner for the RepubliCONS so frequently that I've come to the conclusion he is a RepubliCON pretending to be a Democrat because after the bushes, no RepubliCON could get elected into the oval office.

[Rockyj]

79. The GOP are so extreme that...

Obama is a moderate RepubliCAN.

I pledge to never be fooled again.

[fasttense]

107. Yes, you are right he is a moderate RepubliCON by today's standards.

Looking back 50 years ago, some of what Obama did would have been considered radical conservatism. For example the extension of the bush tax give aways during the lame duck congress. Fifty years ago if anyone had recommended that the uber rich get huge tax cuts in the middle of a huge recession and 2 wars while the unemployment was 10% and the U6 was over 16%, they would have been laughed out of town.

Then of course there is the freezing of federal worker's pay in the middle of a huge depression, er... recession, and recommendation for Social Security cuts that even conservative conservatives would never have suggested 50 years ago.

God I wish we had a real liberal in the White House.

[indepat]

65. Telling it like it is in a radically right-wing-controlled society featuring a radically

right-wing-controlled Supreme Court?

[Le Taz Hot]

4. And yet,

we are to blindly support all things Obama. Oy!

[G_j]

6. deja vu

all over again...

[FSogol]

7. You Better Believe It! LOL at the WSWS link. I'll wait for the real story.

[former9thward]

9. I suppose you will have a complaint about the ACLU ink also.

"The right to engage in peaceful political protest lies at the very heart of the First Amendment," said David Fidanque, executive director of the ACLU of Oregon. "The government essentially is arguing that the courts should trust the Secret Service agents based on faith, rather than evidence. Our clients are entitled to have the case go forward so that they can finally have their day in court."

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/supreme-court-hears-argument-case-alleging-bush-protestors-were-treated-less-favorably

[G_j]

13. pretty clear

thanks

[Jackpine Radical]

16. Ain't believin' it til I sees it on Fox.

Won't know what to think about it 'til Rush tells me.

[NV Whino]

21. Those are the same secret service agents that party drunk with prostitutes?

Right. They have my complete trust.

[tridim]

10. +Yep. Shame, shame on... can't get fooled again. nt

[rhett o rick]

14. So you cant refute the article and you dont have an opinion one way

or the other. The only thing you have to add to the discussion is ridicule of the source.

[sabrina 1]

24. What about the link is incorrect? We have the real story. Whenever the Left peacefully protests

they are beaten, arrested, jailed and even nearly killed. See OWS eg.

The Right apparently are not a threat to National Security.

As for THIS case, it should surprise no one that once again, the Left is the biggest threat to our National Security.

[FSogol]

26. Where is it incorrect? Show me another source that shows the Obama admin asked for this to be

dismissed. Legitimate sources (like the WAPO further down) make zero mention of the admin doing anything with this case. Bottom line, wsws.org is playing fast and loose with the facts. It sucks.

[sabrina 1]

32. The corporate media is a 'legitimate source'? Since when do you totally accept what

is reported in the Corporate Media?

But since you asked, I have already provided you with a legitimate source, so have others, see below for NPR's reporting on the case.

Is the current DOJ part of this administration btw? It is they who are arguing against the protesters right to sue. Looks like most of the SC justices are going to agree, judging by their questions.

[Enrique]

44. my favorite part of your preferred WaPo story:

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly described where the protest against President George W. Bush occurred. It took place in Jacksonville, Ore., not Jacksonville, Fla. This version has been corrected.

[2banon]

70. I'm unclear on your point... you seem to be implying this is a made up story..

Is your bottom line point of contention the source of the op therefore the story is not legitimate or credible?

[cui bono]

91. Someone already showed you another source.

You must have missed it. Here you go:
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/supreme-court-hears-argument-case-alleging-bush-protestors-were-treated-less-favorably

Nevertheless, the Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case on the ground that plaintiffs’ claim of viewpoint discrimination is "implausible." The defendants also argue that Secret Service agents could not have been expected to know in 2004 that their actions in this case violated the First Amendment even if the plaintiffs’ allegations are accepted as true.

Both arguments were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a 2012 ruling.

"The job of the Secret Service is to shield the president from danger, not from criticism," said Steven R. Shapiro, the national legal director of the ACLU.

[FSogol]

94. Should I go back in time and change what I wrote 9 hours ago?

Go ahead and pile on, I really don't care.

[cui bono]

95. Well I haven't see a post by you acknowledging it. And you kept denying it well after the first post

showing you a credible source was given.

[FSogol]

97. I feel really bad for you.

[Enrique]

34. does Reuters count as a real story?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/26/us-usa-court-protests-idUSBREA2P1LF20140326

[Warren Stupidity]

63. it depends on what it says, obviously

[cali]

89. how about Nina Totenberg, dear? because NPR did a long piece about this dogshit casez

unsurprising that you'd be in denial. And people say there's no such thing as blind adorers on DU.



your denial? now thiat is worthy to the max.

[cui bono]

90. The "real" story was posted in response to you. What say you now?

[FSogol]

96. The same thing I said before: using wsws.org as a source on a so-called "Democratic" website sucks.

They ended up being right about something one fucking time. Party time for the rat fuckers, I guess.

[Cha]

104. The ol +1, FSogol~

[Cha]

102. But, they love what it says.. it's A-Okay!

[truebrit71]

8. I am confused as to how to proceed....

Initially this looks and sounds like total bullshit, and massively anti-First Amendment but because it is the Obama administration doing it, it must therefore be perfectly acceptable, and should not be criticized...

Right?

[n2doc]

11. Follow the lead of the poster above who attacks the source rather than the content

That is, if you want to remain in good standing with the True Believers.

[FSogol]

15. Surely you can find a credible piece than wsws.org?

But don't let that get in the way of your bashing and outrage.

[n2doc]

17. How about fucking REUTERS?

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-justices-weigh-case-2004-bush-protests-174204682.html

Take your 'bashing' and Outrage and stick it where the sun don't shine, Idol worshipper

[FSogol]

18. You should have lead with the Reuter's link and not wsws.org crap.

Nice job on all the name calling.

[sabrina 1]

33. So the wsws link was correct. I have found that to be the case regarding that site more often than

not.

But if you wanted to know the facts, what was stopping you from googling. I did and found several other sources reporting the same facts.

Attack the source isn't a good strategy btw, people will find the facts for themselves and now many will probably think more highly of the site you just condemned as not credible since it turns out they were correct.

[LondonReign2]

76. So killing the messenger didn't work for you

What's the next tactic? More importantly, do you agree with the Obama Administration on this?

[SomethingFishy]

85. From the Reuters link

"A federal judge in Oregon refused to dismiss the case in an October 2010 decision that was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in April 2012. Agents Tim Wood and Rob Savage, backed by the administration of President Barack Obama, had appealed that ruling.. "

First you complain about the link. Then when you get an "approved" link you claim it doesn't say what the OP said.

Well it doesn't, in so many words. However the Administration appealing the ruling fits in with the message in the OP.

So what do you have now? Now you've been shown other links and shown where it specifically says that the Obama administration appealed the ruling.
So what's next? Surely you have something else up your sleeve to turn this into something that looks good for the administration.

[FSogol]

27. Just read your yahoo link. No mention of the Obama admin asking for

dismissal. wsws.org made it up.

[Jesus Malverde]

30. Right here "backed by the administration of President Barack Obama, had appealed that ruling."

You could also listen to the arguments.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=13-115&TY=2013

[Rex]

78. Doesn't matter what any of you post

obviously the point is to dismiss whatever it is, without refuting any of it.

[cui bono]

92. Constantly repeating your denials doesn't make them legit. You are ignoring the facts

people are presenting you.

[loudsue]

23. Exactly. The re-education classes are working!

Good for you! A gold star!

[sabrina 1]

25. This is how you are supposed to proceed. You are supposed to attack the source!!

Lol, and btw, do NOT google to check out other sources, just jump in, attack the source, end of story!

And if you don't, you run the risk of being attacked as a 'racist, right wing infiltrator, a hater, not a democrat, Teabagger lunatic, etc etc.

Those are your choices ... hope that clears up any confusion on how to proceed! Lol!

[Ed Suspicious]

56. Unfortunately for you, your liberal leanings

predispose you to suffering the soul tearing emotional effects of cognitive dissonance. Life would be easier if only we we were born republican.

[justiceischeap]

19. Here's this piece in WaPo but it doesn't mention the Obama Admin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-leaning-against-anti-bush-demonstrators-in-free-speech-case/2014/03/26/e4ab8b24-b50c-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html

I've searched tons of other articles and not one of them eluded to the Obama administration interfering. I'm not saying they haven't or wouldn't, I'm just not seeing that anywhere else and with no source in the article you posted to verify that claim, I'll take it with a grain of salt.

Now, I'm sure I'll be labeled a "True Believer" but I'm not... well, in a way I am, I'm a true believer in the truth.

[FSogol]

20. Wow, imagine that! n/t

[sabrina 1]

29. Here you go:

Protesters Want To Sue Secret Service Do They Have The Right?

Wilker agreed there might have been a concern, but said if there was in fact a need to move the protesters, the solution "would simply be to move people slightly."

Lawyer Wilker argued there is ample evidence to allow the case to proceed to the next stage. Once that happens, lawyers for the protesters would have the opportunity to take sworn testimony from the agents and ask the agency whether there are reports of the events that evening confirming or denying what happened.

"If I were drafting interrogatories," Chief Justice Roberts said, the first thing he'd want to know is "what is your policy with respect to moving demonstrators at a presidential event? ... And I can see the Secret Service saying ... that's kind of a bad thing to make it public because there are people out there who want to kill the president ... [and] that gives people a guideline for how to break through the security arrangements."

In rebuttal, the government's lawyer said that's why allowing such suits would be a Secret Service "nightmare."

Oh well, so what if only Left protesters are not entitled to 1st Amendment rights, at least according to the DOJ. The Right poses NO threat to the president!

At least that appears to be the consensus of both the SC justices, so far, and the DOJ.

[Enrique]

37. so the source which excludes that information is better?

when you asked for the "real story", you wanted the one that didn't report the thing you didn't want to know about?

[Enrique]

35. that shows the value of the WSWS

in fact, the Obama administration is in a sense defending the Bush administration. Seems newsworthy to me, but as you say, mainstream sources bury that fact if they report it at all.

Imo, one of the major flaws of the mainstream media is that they downplay the continuity between the Bush and Obama administrations.

Maybe it's because they know people don't want to hear it. It makes some loyalists on both sides want to when they hear it, just like our friend in this thread.

[msanthrope]

39. No...the Obama administration is defending the two Secret Service agents who appealed. WsWS sucks,

because it is incredibly shitty legal reporting to misreport the nature of the parties.

FYI....can you give me a reason why the two agents don't have qualified immunity???

Funny how WSWS didn't bother to report on how that's what this case really turns on.....

[Enrique]

41. WSWS more than thoroughly covers the government's argument

the case doesn't just turn on qualified immunity, it also turns on the First Amendment.

The WSWS article is very long compared to the MSM stories, and they give a very fair account of the government's case.

The difference is that they emphasize the plaintiff's side and the MSM emphasizes the government side.

[msanthrope]

43. No...the constitutional issue won't be reached if qualified immunity is found. That's what makes

WSWS suck...the sheer hackery of the cut and paste routine.

This is going to be a 9-0 decision and frankly, I think the 9th got it wrong.

[Enrique]

45. they are competing

the Justices will weigh one against the other. You apparently favor the government's case so you take what the government says the case turns on, and declare that that is what the case turns on. That is fine, but it does favor one side.

[msanthrope]

46. No....they are not 'competing.' This is basic legal procedure you learn on the first

day of law school. They won't reach the constitutional issue because qualified immunity would tank the entire case. SCOTUS doesn't issue hypos.

[justiceischeap]

61. Besides, the way I read some of Scalia's statements

He says this is a case worth hearing about just not with these defendants--the SS. I think if the SS weren't involved, hearing this case wouldn't be an issue. In some ways I can see their line of thinking... do we really want to tie the hands of the secret service when they have to make split-second decisions regarding the President's life? Do we want the first thought going through their heads, "But what if I'm sued?" other than, "Gotta put myself in the line of fire for this person I may or may not personally like."

It's a sticky wicket, that said, I don't think this should set a precedent for encroaching on citizens' first amendment rights.

[msanthrope]

62. Exactly..because it's an SS case, I think it makes a poor 1st amendment one. nt

[Cha]

100. I see a post is hidden that got a little carried away with the knee jerk Obama hate..

There's too much good news coming with Obama now.. they need something to whine about and bring out their stupid ass "used car salesman" shit.. brought to them by the great derper.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Well, we have to "look forward", whistle a happy tune, and think beautiful thoughts.

[Newsjock]

31. Say what?

[Divernan]

55. Excellent! I thank you and Mr. Pitt thanks you!

[bvar22]

84. LOL.

Lions and Tigers and Bears..... Oh My!

DU has a new meme.

[Cha]

99. Yeah, these fuckers like it too..

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/03/21/leftwing-editor-turns-angrily-obamacare-calls-obama-piece-sht-used-car-salesman/

[msanthrope]

36. Unrec for a shitty source that ineptly describes the legal issues at hand. Here's the link to the

actual arguments...and frankly, I expect better on this board.....if you are discussing a SCOTUS case, GIVE a link to what you are discussing!

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.aspx

[Enrique]

38. i wasn't aware of that standard

i didn't know there was any expectation whatsoever that when Supreme Court cases are discussed, that a link to the official Supreme Court website should be given.

[msanthrope]

40. I'm always suspicious when agenda driven reporting doesn't give a link to the primary source...and

sure as shit...the case is going to turn on the qualified immunity issue, which this shit source didn't bother to report.

Yes....one should provide primary sources. DU would be better for it.

[Enrique]

42. they gave the name of the case, "Wood v. Moss"

if you are claiming that that is not enough, you are just exposing your own bias against WSWS.

They are not Gospel, but one thing agenda-driven sources like WSWS do is call attention to things that are downplayed or left out of mainstream stories. This is a good example imho.

[msanthrope]

47. Bias against the favorite source of banned troll of Hannah Bell? You Better Believe It! nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. If you expected better on this board ...

you must not have been paying attention.

It is enough that a headline read: "Bad (President) Obama", to make the GT Page ... because many will rec (and comment) on that basis, without actually reading beyond the 1st paragraph of the piece (if not, the Thread Title).

[onenote]

48. What would the reaction be here if the Secret Service re-routed President Obama away from Tea Party

protesters? I wonder how many people here even know that the position taken by the government in defending the Secret Service agents that were sued in this case was narrower than the position that Scalia believed that they should have taken.

I'm a very strong advocate of the First Amendment; but I also recognize that the Secret Service has to make judgments relating to security and sometimes first amendment interests and security interests come into conflict. The government's argument in this case is fact specific; it does not argue for an absolute immunity for the Secret Service to make judgments that place ideological concerns over security issues.

[Ed Suspicious]

60. Rerouted the president and removed the protesters

are two very different things. Reroute all you want. Remove under implied threat of force, not so in favor of that.

[L0oniX]

50. Let no bad deed go punished.

[Ed Suspicious]

51. Sometimes, when they make their authoritarian, bushco

apologist leanings known, I wish the administration would remove its head from its ass and shut the fuck up.

[Maedhros]

54. Let's be clear about what is being addressed with this lawsuit.

When Bush decided to eat dinner at a nearby restaurant, local police and Secret Service agents began ordering the removal of the anti-Bush protesters, who, they claimed, were disturbing Bush with antiwar chants as he ate his meal. The anti-Bush demonstrators were first moved one block away, then two blocks, while the pro-Bush demonstrators were allowed to remain at their initial location close to the president.

We have local and Federal law enforcement agencies deciding which people are allowed to assemble and speak, and which people are not, based upon their partisan loyalty.

Why on earth would the White House choose to oppose this suit?

[truebrit71]

57. ^this^ Whilst others kvetch about the source ^this^ hits the nail on the head..

...it is not about whether you can assemble and speak, but the Obama administration siding with Bushco that they get to decide WHOM GETS TO ASSEMBLE AND SPEAK..

[Maedhros]

71. I remember when people were being excluded from Bush's campaign events because they wore

T-shirts with anti-Bush slogans.

It infuriated me then, and it infuriates me now. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly matter, people.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. That is NOT what is being addressed with the lawsuit ...

This case is about whether Qualified Immunity of the Secret Service agents, attaches ... though their actions are apart of the fact pattern.

[Maedhros]

69. I understand the legal rhetoric being used to undermine the First Amendment here.

But the real effect of the ruling will be to allow sitting U.S. Presidents (or holders of other political offices) to censor the political speech of citizens opposed to their policies.

A ruling in favor of the government in this instance will further entrench the concept of the Imperial Presidency. Not good for democracy.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. Standing and Jurisdiction are more than mere "legal rhetoric." eom.

[Enrique]

77. no, that is not correct

in fact the discrimination between pro and anti Bush supporters WAS part of the case.

The story in WSWS reports this exchange, and the MSM stories leave it out for whatever reason:

The most deprecating treatment of plaintiff’s counsel came from Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted questioning and demanded: “Let’s say something happens back in the patio area where you—you’re the head of the Secret Service Detail. You’ve got to evacuate the president right away. Do you go through the anti-Bush crowd or through the pro-Bush crowd? You’ve got to decide right now quickly. I’m serious. You have to make a split-second decision. Which way do you go?”

When plaintiff’s counsel hedged, Justice Roberts leapt on him: “It’s too late. You’ve taken too long to decide. It’s a serious point.”
Justice Antonin Scalia interjected, “You’re the farthest thing from a security expert if you don’t know the answer to that one.”

Maybe that's why people hate WSWS so much. Because they want to claim like you just did that this wasn't part of the case. WSWS commits the grave sin of reporting this unpleasant fact, while the corporate media helpfully leaves it out.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. How about you actually read the argument before the Court ...

rather than, just taking anyone's interpretation of what the case was really about.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-115_o8k3.pdf

Here is/are the salient point(s):

Mr. Chief Justice, and may
9
it please the Court:
10
The Ninth Circuit held that individual
11
Secret Service agents could be held personally liable
12
for their onthespot decision to reposition a group of
13
about 200 to 300 demonstrators who were within weapon's
14
range of President Bush as he made an unscheduled as
15
he made an unscheduled stop for dinner at an outdoor
16
restaurant patio.
17

And the only way they could not to be found liable would be: 1) the events did not happen; or 2) there was some kind of immunity.

Maybe that's why people hate WSWS so much. Because they want to claim like you just did that this wasn't part of the case.

I never said it was not a part of the case ... just that it was the fact pattern that gave rise to the qualified immunity controversy; but not the matter that the Court was called upon to answer.

[onenote]

81. wsws edited the actual exchange between plaintiff's counsel, Roberts, and Scalia

The wsws description above leaves out a good part of the exchange it quotes. And it leaves out Justice Sotamayor's comments as well.

See the transcript at pages 32 - 34.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-115_o8k3.pdf

[Enrique]

88. and every other story edited that WHOLE exchange out

as far as I've seen, WSWS is the only source mentioning the issue of discrimination between pro and anti-Bush supporters, which despite some claims here was indeed an issue in the case.

[onenote]

105. I guess it depends on where you choose to look

Don't know what other sites you checked for information but the stories gave a more complete version of the exchange that wsws described. Maybe that's because when I want news about a supreme court argument, I go to a source like the National Law Journal, not wsws.

[tomg]

59. Here is a link from the

NY Times that might put some of the issues in a different ( though equally insane) context. The government lawyer, Ian Gergenshorn, wants to win but on the narrowest of issues and Scalia and Roberts ( what a surprise) are questioning that narrowness and, according to The Times .

"Mr. Gershengorn’s main argument was a modest one. He said the agents were immune from suit because their conduct was not governed by clearly established law. He said broader arguments were not before the court.

Justice Scalia seemed eager to reach those larger questions, including whether the protesters had a right to sue at all and whether the agents’ motives mattered, given the security concerns."


As The Times goes on to note:

"The First Amendment ordinarily prohibits discrimination by the government based on the speaker’s viewpoint. But Chief Justice Roberts suggested that there may be an exception when 'the viewpoint itself constitutes a security consideration'.”


So basically, if what I am inferring is correct, the administration wants to infringe on our rights "slightly" while the usual idiots want to really do a number on us. In that regard, and considering the makeup of the court, it is a case of "they have to throw away our rights to save our rights."

Good God. That there is some insane logic in this is so utterly depressing.

[Enrique]

64. please only use reputable sources

of which there are two: www.whitehouse.gov and www.theobamadiary.com

[truebrit71]

73. ROFL!

I see what you did there...

[Catherina]

74. +1. About DU: "Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter"

About Democratic Underground
Mission Statement

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

[City Lights]

86. LOL!

[Cha]

101. Baloney.. you damn well it's RT and firedoglake.

[SidDithers]

67. wsws.org LOL...

I miss Hannah Bell too.

Sid

[spanone]

82. the President does NOT urge the supreme court. eom.

[cui bono]

93. His DoJ does. n/t

[Raksha]

83. K & R, bookmarked. n/t

[Enthusiast]

87. President Obama is all about freedom.

[PowerToThePeople]

98. Is Obama joining team BFEE after he leaves office? n/t

[Recursion]

103. HORRIFYING: SOLICITER GENERAL DOES HIS JOB

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.

[99Forever]

106. The Obama Adminstration backing tromping Consitutional Rights?

Tell me it ain't so.