Obama admin. backs Vatican’s claim of immunity to sexual abuse lawsuits (ENABLER!)

Obama admin. backs Vatican’s claim of immunity to sexual abuse lawsuits

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0525/obama-backs-catholic-church-immunity-claim-sexual-abuse-lawsuits/

By Agence France-Presse
Tuesday, May 25th, 2010 -- 5:55 pm

The Obama administration in a brief to the Supreme Court has backed the Vatican's claim of immunity from lawsuits arising from cases of sexual abuse by priests in the United States.

The Supreme Court is considering an appeal by the Vatican of an appellate court ruling that lifted its immunity in the case of an alleged pedophile priest from Oregon.

In a filing on Friday, the solicitor general's office argued that the Ninth Circuit court of appeals erred in allowing the lawsuit brought by a man who claims he was sexually abused in the 1960s by the Oregon priest.

This type of stuff just boils my blood......it is past the time to start making people in power pay for their crimes.

People stand behind god, corporations, and say you can't hold me responsible for crimes.

I say BULLSHIT.

I think the problem is logistical in that The Vatican says it is a under a different country called the "Holy See" and you can't sue a country. This same thing happened before in 2004.

There must be a way of suing the American part of the Catholic church that I haven't seen done yet.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the justice dept did`t have to say a thing. there`s more to this than just the catholic church`s problem.

I hate to inject fact into this....but as the federal respondent, our Solicitor General SHOULD have something to say about the application of federal law.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

how inspiring to see Obama side with pedophiles.

what a great man. just the sort of leader we need at this time.

one that makes me proud to be an American. such a wise leader, such an inspiration to children everywhere.

Do you have any substantive argument with the brief itself? Or just the usual anti-Obama talking points?

worship Obama is just a mindless idiot reading from talking points.

Pfffft.

Obama...

All I'm asking is for a single cite from the relevant brief that supports the assertion of the OP.

So far, no one's been able to do that---

he is the head of a internationally recognized state.

this is what they are talking about.

Right or wrong, a precedent against the Vatican would weaken all nation state claims to immunity.

Does this make it right? No... but that is what is going on.

not hopeless, but pointless.

to safeguard religious leaders from children.

it is about a head of state.

They would do that if this was a lawsuit against the President of Ireland.

especially considering we can lie (with others' knowledge), invade a sovereign nation, hang its leader after a show trial, publicize that hanging via the net, agree that torture is okay...

the problem with the Pope as the head of a state is that it's a phony designation.

do you really think the administration would file a brief in support of Saddam Hussein if he were alive and claimed immunity from charges of pedophilia? honestly?

this country for a show trial and imprisonment.

This country does what it pleases and you have a great example. If we really felt like putting the Pope on trial, we would do it the same way as Noriega or Milosevic.

I can't see how you see the situations as analogous.

and he`s never going to the hague

there are a few of ours that should go there too.

you allow one head of state to face the music, you allow your own to face the music... bush, know what I mean? Kissinger, know what I mean?

So states do what they need to do to protect themselves. It has nothing to do with morality.

that they don't is part of the reason this nation is so fucked up.

and yes they should... but they won't...

I am willing to bet that other nations (cough European cough) will also protect the Pope when the suit is filed over there by their own nationals, and it is coming.

The Netherlands has no great love for the office of the Pope. Please keep me posted if you see any European nations that move to protect the pope (other than Italy or Ireland - both of whom are givens.)

I wonder if Ireland, whose economic troubles are now said to be worse than Greece's, is in trouble in part because of the billions they have to pay out for the abuse of children by the pope's pedophiles there.

I hate to bring up the fact, but if you actually read the brief, you will see that the US is the federal respondent--as this involves one of our treaties....

I also invite you read the brief and realize that the US isn't foreclosing a finding of no immunity--but is claiming that the 9th arrived incorrectly at the affirmance of the District Court.

you are very correct

proxy?

States which are on the official list of "designated state sponsors of terrorism" can, in fact, be sued.

This is why the civil suit against Libya by families of the Lockerbie victims WAS allowed to proceed.

or whatever you name a head of state. Exactly

But we have a better chance to get these guys in jail than a head of state.

It is fine that he feels that he is a leader of a country. However, he is also the leader of a religion and church. Where is the line drawn??

Does he have the right to decide how our laws should read, how we should treat the people of this country?? Where does the country end, the church begin??

Immunity is fine for heads of state. At the same time he thinks he should be able to have a say in this country. This is what I have a problem with.

and by "faith" i mean one's willingness to believe in stupid impossible shit which in any situation outside of religion they would find laughable. various religions have been used throughout time to control people - and yet we STILL fall for it. religion truly is the opiate of the masses - we're addicted and it has proven to be a very dangerous and costly addiction indeed. religions are nothing more than large cults. if you believe some guy named moses actually parted an entire sea, not only do i have a bridge to sell you, but your willingness to believe, and i mean truly believe, in such a fairy tale is both troubling and dangerous. sorry if i offend, but it's true.

afghanistan.

religion ain't the only fairy tale in evidence.

we pretend to not be ruled by religion here - but name one - just one president who was not a so-called "christian".

The Air Force is having a HUGE evangelical problem. 90-95% of cadets are evangelicals. You and I may not be in a "holy war", but those cadets sure are - or will be soon enough - and the muslims in the middle east know it all to well.

"DENVER, May 12 -- An Air Force chaplain who complained that evangelical Christians were trying to "subvert the system" by winning converts among cadets at the Air Force Academy was removed from administrative duties last week, just as the Pentagon began an in-depth study of alleged religious intolerance among cadets and commanders at the school."

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201740.html

are most definitely of this world, for who would believe what were it not for the support and encouragement and rewards from like-minded folk. Indeed, it is an addiction.

Wouldn't the real definition of a belief be, not only the extent to which it does not rely on "proof", but also on no other form of support? And wouldn't such a belief, valid or not, unify its adherents more completely than anything that is adulterated by extraneous and, hence, disonant conditional qualifications such as "Who/how many others believe _____________"?

we should all move forward as people - real human beings - not "consumers" - into a future where we are more environmentally responsible, less hateful, more helpful, and more self aware both spiritually (which is totally separate from religion to me) and in our impact on the world and those around us. Namaste. :hippie:

in a field that IS heading in that direction: Elder Care. Why? Because it MUST.

I like the Hindu chant "Om namah Shivaya". I have read that a rough translation is "May the essence of the cosmos be purely manifest in me". To me this amounts to "May I be real" - WHATEVER reality is. This also does not seem inconsistent with some things that a man named Yeshua said about being "the way", "the truth", and "the light". Unfortunately most of what this guy said got turned into pretty magical fairytales so some people could make a living off of other people desiring to hide from the truth about us.

:grr:

I'm not enjoying our corporate theocracy.

If Bush had done this, there would be blood on the walls.

But they are in cases of Democrats as this is Democratic Underground. So if a lawyer knows how to read a brief, they probably are going to chime in if someone is just typing buzz words.

And not so much regarding Republicans.

Weird, right?

It weakens our case for being "better" when we spin facts for elected Dems no matter how heinous the action. It's easy to poke holes in hypocrisy. I'm sure there are several things Bush did that we complained about here that were in fact perfectly legal. But our sense of justice rebelled and we wanted a better world so we talked about possibilities for change. If "change" is only a matter of changing the names on the doors, then I truly wonder what any of us are doing here.

in the brief.

It weakens our case for being intelligent when we blame an Administration for things it has not done (Bush is going to cancel the elections! Bush caused the Indonesian Earthquake! Global Warming caused the European Volcano! Obama loves pedophiles!)

Why did you respond to me in a subthread where I wasn't addressing you? Funny old thing life.

I responded to you because I am sick to death of people who do not see in themselves what they scream about in other people. You call people defenders and I agree there are defenders. But at the same time, this OP is hyperbolic. When I find people recommending nutball threads from a Rense loving website simply because it is anti-Obama (because it sure as hell cannot be because it is a good source) and then see people complain that DU is so pro Obama, I can't help but scratch my head.

I thought we had members here who write there? I feel under no obligation to bandy words with you when you attack a caricature of your own devising. I did no "screaming" and I've already stated my opinion. It makes me sick that children will suffer as a result of this decision. It is probably legal, and there is nothing I can do about it, but I'm not going to just shut up because you are "sick to death".

The site I am talking about is a nutbag conspiracy site (NOT Rawstory) and the thread I am referring to is a thread from yesterday.

I have created no caricature--there absolutely are people who loathe every single thing Obama does just as there are people who will defend every single thing Obama does. Conveniently, both sides seem blind to their own existence.

I don't remember anything like that, I usually try to check the links. When you addressed your remarks to me, it made it seem like you were speaking of me personally. I can't speak for all of DU, I can only speak for myself. There are people here who never speak on or rec the threads that are important to me, but I don't go after them personally every time they post to alert all of DU to what I deem are their failings as humans. I honestly don't understand the point of this conversation, and will end by saying if you try to control every facet of behavior that goes on here you will give yourself ulcers. :hi: For everything else, there is the alert button!

here is anything but just "changing the names on the doors".

Law is about process not morality, not a perfect process, but one preferable to giving people what they scream for, the power to enforce their own morality, a power that can be as brutal as any other. No matter how Just a given instance may be, it always, eventually, leads to Might-Makes-Right.

Until some realistic resolution of the inadequacies of the process manifests itself and is implemented by those who are capable of recognizing it, I am going to side with those who stand some chance of facilitating the evolution of the process, even if it is in the "smallest" ways, toward that possibility rather than with those who would trust chaos to get it right.

do you disagree with?

This is the gist of the objection:

The unnamed plaintiff, who cited the Holy See and several other parties as defendants, argued the Vatican should be held responsible for transferring the priest to Oregon and letting him serve there despite previous accusations he had abused children in Chicago and in Ireland.

The solicitor general's office, which defends the position of President Barack Obama's administration before the Supreme Court, said the Ninth Circuit improperly found the case to be an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a 1976 federal law that sets limits on when other countries can face lawsuits in US courts.

This means that if the individual wants to sue the head of another country, he/she cannot do it through American courts, and would have to go through International court.

The priest who did the act can be sued, but not all of those above him who resides in other countries.

I would hate for folks in other countries deciding that by extension of sorts, the U.S. Government can be sued in their country and that it would have relevance.

Sorry, until we have an truly International court system, I'm not sure if what you all are advocating would be best. Certainly one might think so in this case; but then there will be other types of cases and this would provide precedence.

Of course, folks commenting on how they are "through" with Obama (probably for the 100 times minimum in the last 18 months) must have passed the bar and understand exactly what is being said here....but I have my doubts, as I have noticed that many folks don't even bother to read anything anymore before commenting.

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:

"Disgusting" is not a legal concept, and while I agree with you that any defense of the Vatican is stomach churning, it is not the job of the Solicitor to disobey the Court, and not answer.

It's also not the job of the Solicitor to change their opinion of the law based on the grossness of the defendant.

Your boyfriend is a lawyer? Then he probably told you that sometimes, his job requires he defend absolutely disgusting people because they have a justiciable claim.

and "she", like many women, is a lawyer. Your conclusion says a lot. What is debatable is the recognition of the Vatican as a "state" in de facto terms. It will be interesting to see if any European States defend this. My guess is few will.

I'm sure you can draw a conclusion about that....


So, did either you or you best friend read the brief and come up with something that you found incorrect?


You raise an interesting point not briefed on...."the recognition of the Vatican as a "state" in de facto terms." I'm not sure how the 'European States' per se, enter into that discussion, but I invite you to expand upon it.

In contemporary times it is questionable whether the equivalent of a religious home office is entitled to that distinction. Does one consider the Swiss Guard as de facto military and is the Papal State a real country? It has been held to be so at various times but it has also been questioned.Much of the respect given to the papacy has been symbolic and much was accorded to it by Catholic States. This is no longer so. The diplomatic standing of the vatican can be called, and IMHO, should be called in to question.

We are continuing to respect a symbolic sovereignty granting it all the priveledges of a legitimate state.

one does not argue that Section 1605 (a)(5) of FSIA was improperly applied by referencing the Lateran Treaty, 'european states', or whether or not the Swiss Guard is an actual military force unless one is Orly Taitz.

Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that rather than arguing the actual law, you would like the Solicitor General to deny the existence of the Vatican State.

That simply is not an argument that will be taken seriously on any level. In fact, I'll go so far as to suggest to you that the Plaintiff deserves actual legal analysis from the SG, not crackpot theories. Had the Plaintiff wanted this particular line of insanity followed, they would have raised it themselves. And your concern is for the Plaintiff, right?

and Section1605 (a) (5) of FSIA is going to impress anyone on an anonymous discussion board? But as FSIA is a jurisdictional statute the onus is the Vatican to prove it is a legitimate nation state. Interestingly one of the conditions which must be met in order to prove such status is its establishment as a political entity.

I question that the Vatican would be able to do this. Even the formulation of Vatican City as a sovereign entity in 1929 was on shaky ground. Since this is the case it would seems such credentials would automatically disqualify the catholic Church for the tax exemptions it now enjoys. Just a random thought.

Perhaps someone with guts would like to give them a choice, diplomatic immunity , or tax exemption? I wonder how that would play out?

And no, I really don't think that our Solicitor General would have the guts to argue this, and perhaps this case was not the one to do it, but this did involve sovereignty and jurisdiction. As for my concern for the plaintiff, of course I care but our government did nothing to defend him.

I honestly think the time has long come to dispute the Vatican as a sovereign entity. You may think it is a "crackpot theory" but I think the recognition of a Church as a sovereign nation is crackpot and the defense of the Church claiming the Bishops are not "employees" is specious at best.

impress you, but is a reminder to you that that is actually the point of the case.

Which, unsurprisingly, was what the SC was called on to brief.

Now, again, if the Plaintiff did not question the Vatican's sovereignty, why would any other party? (FYI, you'd have to address the Lateren Treaty if disputing the statehood of the Vatican.)

In fact, what you are suggesting that the SC do is a violation of the FRCP, and is detrimental to the Plaintiff...you are suggesting that the SC inject an argument that is not relevant, not otherwise briefed on, and not part of the question presented.

You are asking a government entity to push an agenda--a theory, as opposed to the law. And you seem to care very little about what that would do to the Plaintiff's actual case. Not for anything, but do have any idea the burden that puts on the Plaintiffs and their attorneys?

You write:

"I honestly think the time has long come to dispute the Vatican as a sovereign entity. You may think it is a "crackpot theory" but I think the recognition of a Church as a sovereign nation is crackpot and the defense of the Church claiming the Bishops are not "employees" is specious at best."

That's all fine, well, and good, but NONE of what you've stated has ANYTHING to do with the brief filed...and what you are advocating is what crackpot lawyers, like Orly Taitz do--

They take vulnerable clients, and use them to push their political agendas. Look at every single birther client Taitz had--she fucked them over mercilessly in her pursuit of her political agenda.

You are advocating taking a case that has little to do with your issue, and pushing your issue. Now, tell me, Saracat, what would your theory DO for the Plaintiff? Make their case, or recovery of damages easier? Or more difficult?

Explain to me, PLEASE, the tactical advantage of the Plaintiff claiming that the Vatican isn't a state.

make my point. However it needs to be said that this was in fact a case concerning jurisdiction, which is why it was addressed under FSIA 1605. The tactical advantage would be that the Vatican would not be able to shield itself under immunity or seperate itself from its "employees". The plantiff would have more deeper pockets to hold responsible.

1. Sue the vatican for torts committed by priests.

2. Deny them statehood.

3. ????????

4. Profit.

At least you've conceeded that these Plaintiffs need not bear the burden of figuring out #3 for you.

And you knew the Vatican had sent him to your parish knowing he had done so before?

Would you be quite so supportive in that case?

should we still apply the law, or let them just have you?
That's the real question; one of law, not so much one of the victim's parents emotion.

I'm not supporting what was done (so try not to get it twisted), but I'm a grown up and understand that we live in a land of laws....some which I wish could be set aside at times regardless of why they are there....which is probably why I'm not a judge.

Some folks were mad when they "Heard" that Obama might try to have that American Citizen
who lives in Yemen and wants Americans dead killed...and at that time, they said
"...but that's against the law!"
Well this is more of that, just this time folks want the law not to be followed,
cause for them, it's more convenient, especially if they can Bash this President in the process.
Some might call that hypocrisis.

I think the Vatican should be legally liable.

That's a long way from lynching anyone.

Sheesh.

It would still be the law, regardless of my feelings.

I would have preferred they took a different tack.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I may not like it, but international diplomacy gives governments and their representatives rights we mortals don't always get - otherwise Bush wouldn't have been allowed in certain countries. However, the Vatican itself has said that individual priests are just contractors, not their employees, so prosecute away.

it argues for remand, stating that the 9th improperly applied Oregon law.

It's still possible to find a tortious exception to FSIA, but not as the District Court did it.

this is an honest question.

obviously no one can know, but I would find it hard to believe that, considering the political climate, this would play out in the same way with Saddam if he were alive.

It's the usual horror show of a Scalia, but that mofo does know his FSIA.

...so your informative posts are more appreciated than you think.

Doesn't matter whether it's banksters, torturers, corrupt public officials, food poisoners like Peanut Corp- or pedophile priests.

When people say just like Bush II- here's one important area that they've repeatedly been proven correct.

i'd ask if you have any sense of shame, but i won't even bother.

food poisoners, corrupt public officials- and pedophile priests.

Based on the record, Obama's Justice Department has been an utter disgrace.

Too bad the Justice Department didn't seriously look into the malfeasance going on a the MMS prior to Obama signing off on offshore drilling, eh?

That one's come back bit the administration and all the rest of us....

<on edit- forget about wiretapping telecoms- the list is so long, it's hard to keep track of)

if you read this thread in its entirety there's more than enough information to make this outrage seem misplaced, but that's ok.

Maybe you think they should be above the law? The administration certainly seems to think so.

pedophiles.

don't change the subject. back that shit up.

What I said is that based on the record, this is entirely consistent with the Justice Department's behavior, which any objective observer would see as anathema to accountability.

It is the Solicitor General's job to opine on matter touching federal jurisdiction...and FSIA fits that.

When you read the brief, the SC is not foreclosing on a finding of no immunity under an exception to FSIA....only that the 9th incorrectly applied Oregon law.

I agree--the Vatican makes me sick, too, but the SC shouldn't change its opinion on the law based on the disgustingness of the defendant....

Please share your expertise on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

there is no accountability.

If they want to pretend to be a country, let them defend themselves as a country.

This tip toeing around the world's oldest criminal enterprise is disgusting.

Just leave the buildings and art and old books intact, OK?

The spirituality of the religion is beautiful. Too bad the hierarchy of patriarchal authoritarians had to hijack it. :(

The Church may have a future, but not under present management.

Regime change!!!

The art and buildings are truly worthy of saving. The jewels could be sold to pay reparations.

If we can invade Grenada, why not the Vatican?

I think the MO now is to skim if at all possible, relie on headlines otherwise.

Why are people too lazy to care whether what they've been fed is actually true or spin?

Truth seems to be optional these days.

For some, one is easier to do than the other, I reckon.

We are obviously not as smart or diligent as we claim to be....
nor do we seem to want to understand the nuance of the law
except for when it favors us.

Sometimes, looking at Right Wing vs. Left Wing bloggers,
it's like looking at the side view of a two way mirror; or two opposing side of the same
coin.

But acknowledging nuance and context in any given issue (especially legal and scientific ones)
is so Pre-Obama, till it ain't even funny.

I'm kind of embarassed that some will do anything to pin negativity on Obama.

Obama's getting hit by the racist assholes and at the same time having to deal with the
"fuck the laws" let's-just-get-her-done folks. Mix them together, and it's a perfect storm
for a Tea Party Republican President in 2012. We did it to Carter, and look what that got us; our worse nightmare Reagan, who we have to thank for an awful lot of the mess that we are now in.

Unintended consequences is a price that will be paid by the reactionaries and their unchecked emotions, and I believe we will be paying it sooner than soon, because it has become very obvious
that we hadn't yet paid enough. :(

Priests are not citizens of the Vatican.
They are not diplomats.
They do not represent the Vatican in any diplomatic or political sense.
They deserve no such protection.

and everything to do with the Vatican.

Try reading the article to pick up on the points of law:

The unnamed plaintiff, who cited the Holy See and several other parties as defendants, argued the Vatican should be held responsible for transferring the priest to Oregon and letting him serve there despite previous accusations he had abused children in Chicago and in Ireland.

The solicitor general's office, which defends the position of President Barack Obama's administration before the Supreme Court, said the Ninth Circuit improperly found the case to be an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a 1976 federal law that sets limits on when other countries can face lawsuits in US courts.

nt

a law exists on the books that is being ignored that is germaine to the case, especially when she is answering a court order.

In the end, the courts get last say as to whether they will affirm or vacate a judgment; not the Solicitor General and certainly not Pres. Obama.

I think that is how it works here in the United States of America, or how it used to work.

rogue state, withdraw from any treaties it has with the Vatican, and stop recognizing it as a sovereign state, it doesn't deserve that distinction anyways.

At least then, the government wouldn't be forced to recognize "sovereign immunity" anymore.

before a rush to judgment?

"said the Ninth Circuit improperly found the case to be an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a 1976 federal law that sets limits on when other countries can face lawsuits in US courts."

There are policies and reasons behind the act - and we'd have to know all about its exceptions, and those policies before we really knew what we were talking about.

humanity?

The Vatican can't have it both ways although it looks like the administration is enabling it.

Seriously.

There are days on this board when I wonder if our modern education system has utterly failed us--I mean, was my education so revolutionary that I take it as a given that if I am to opine on a frakin' document, I READ IT?

Sorry for the rant...

Why don't you teach the brief to us line by line. Start a new OP and please supply a link to the brief.

:shrug:

They want the US government subject to jurisdiction in heresy trials in the Vatican.

Others here wouldn't know the word jurisdiction if it bit them in the ass.

The most offensive move yet.

I have to ask. Which part of the brief, specifically, gave rise to the comment "Holy Shit."

these dudes gotta stick together. Catholicism is a great oppressor, brain-washer, and manipulator of human beings (women in particular). Catholicism keeps people under control.

This guy is a complete idiot. He should fire his entire lot of "advisors" and just pick random democrats off the street. They would serve him better.

He has lost the pulse of the people, thus rendering himself impotent.

I think he never realized that it is the POWER OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE that can do ANYTHING. He is merely supposed to be a lens to focus this vast reservoir of talent, energy, and enthusiasm to reform our government and bring the corporate criminals to justice.

Instead, he threw the people under the bus, and immediately started groveling before whatever corporation presented themselves as overlord.

I don't agree with much of what Mr. Obama's administration is proposing/doing in terms of polcy. But I don't have to suspend reality. Obama is a shoe in for 2012.

Us liberals can throw all the hissy fits we want, but the DLC knows damned well that the GOP will not be able to articulate a proper campaign in 2012. Obama knows this, and as such he doesn't have to throw a single bone to the left. After all where are liberals gonna go when push comes to shove?

I'd like to read their decision.

Perhaps someone can find a link to it.

But I already did after he supported the blanket firing of the Central Falls 93.