Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001
Is Phil Knight suing Reebok? No, it would be Nike who would be suing right? But if Phil Knight is the CEO of Nike and is the one who made the call to sue and demanded his lawyers file a patent infringement lawsuit against Reebok where does the difference lay?
|
Saying "Obama sued ____" implies a level of control Obama doesn't have.
He can likely push for an action, and can probably kill a given action if he chooses as the guy at the 'top of the pile', but he certainly can't do any of that without the DOJ's backing and vetting of the case ... he's at 'best' a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Likely, his day-to-day interactions with the DOJ are similar to Phil Knight's over his legal department - which is to say, oversight, but not direct management.
It's not really a major issue - you're more right than wrong, but the language is a bit strong and might be taken to imply something more about Obama himself. I think it's pushing it to say it was "Obama" as if it were him and him alone.
EDIT: I just realized that the disconnect might be coming from the military ... people often say "Bush invaded Iraq" or similar, to shorthand standing as CIC, and I didn't even consider you might be making that kind of connection, so my bad. I still think that the role of the President in relation to the DOJ (as I understand it) is different, especially given the nature of the title of Commander in Chief and the ceremony and etc. that comes with it, as well as the nature of foreign policy. I well may be wrong.
Quote:
|
And since neither of us have any input or control of who the DOJ chooses to go after, no its not the same.
|
I didn't mean that they were the same ... but the logic could be contorted to be similar. After all, Obama is "in charge" of the DOJ, and the DOJ represents the interests of the American people with their explicit consent to do so.
Threaded Mode
