Does Obama really have a law degree?

D

drjekyllus

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book
it is also about how our law affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living,care for their families
,whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaIbZ36m25c

Huh?

God forbid, that the Supreme Court rules on some abstract legal theory in a 200 year old document. That wouldnt be fair.

Being a supreme court justice has nothing to do with taken into account a person's economic state as Obama suggests. It has to do with determining if someone's Constitutional Rights have been violated or not. Thats it. It has nothing to do with how rich or how poor they are--that should not be taken into account.
 
Your post smacks of short-sightedness and ignorance.

This does not mean I'm accusing you of stupidity.

Law in our nation is derived from two sources, mainly; Law derived from the acts and bills passed by federal and state legislative bodies through statutory authority, which is known as codified law, and law derived from English Common Law plus our own Common Law as accumulated after our break from England.

Stare decisis is a legal principle that states past rulings by equivalent or higher courts of law should be respected (for example, a state appellate court would not want to overrule a decision of another panel of judges of the same court, nor could it overturn the ruling of a higher court, whether federal or state).

This principle of stare decisis ensures predictability and stability in the legal process, and keeps litigants from having to engage in rampant speculation about probable outcomes based on both statutory and common law principles.

Obama's statement is perfectly in keeping with the aspirations and ideals of our legal system, since our system strives to balance stability and organic change with time (if it didn't, only white land owners would have the ability to vote today, and it would not be illegal to intentionally block your neighbors view of the ocean by intentionally building a tall obstruction in their line of site.

It would be refreshing to see some logic and heft applied in some of these threads that bash Obama ad nauseum, day after day, hour after hour.
 
Quote from ByLoSellHi:

Your post smacks of short-sightedness and ignorance.

This does not mean I'm accusing you of stupidity.

Law in our nation is derived from two sources, mainly; Law derived from the acts and bills passed by federal and state legislative bodies through statutory authority, which is known as codified law, and law derived from English Common Law plus our own Common Law as accumulated after our break from England.

Stare decisis is a legal principle that states past rulings by equivalent or higher courts of law should be respected (for example, a state appellate court would not want to overrule a decision of another panel of judges of the same court, nor could it overturn the ruling of a higher court, whether federal or state).

This principle of stare decisis ensures predictability and stability in the legal process, and keeps litigants from having to engage in rampant speculation about probable outcomes based on both statutory and common law principles.

Obama's statement is perfectly in keeping with the aspirations and ideals of our legal system, since our system strives to balance stability and organic change with time (if it didn't, only white land owners would have the ability to vote today, and it would not be illegal to intentionally block your neighbors view of the ocean by intentionally building a tall obstruction in their line of site.

It would be refreshing to see some logic and heft applied in some of these threads that bash Obama ad nauseum, day after day, hour after hour.
More...

I don't buy it at all. The Supreme Court rules to determine if someones Constituitional Rights have been violated. They are not expected to take someone's economic situation into account. If it were the case that the Supreme Court took someone's economic status into account then the idea of precedence would be meaningless because each people has their own set of circumstances, which might be ruled on differently.

It is the Congress' job to pass any laws which may attempt to provide relief to citizen's who are of dire economic means. Or have somehow been wronged in the Constitution. The Supreme Court should certainly not decide their opionions based on an individuals economic status.

As for your talk about voters rights, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Please see the 15th and 19th Amendments to the Constituition. In this case, once again, the Congress righted a wrong because the Supreme Court could only determine Constitutionality of the laws at the time.

So yes, this is a stupid statement by Obama.
 
Quote from ByLoSellHi:

Your post smacks of short-sightedness and ignorance.

This does not mean I'm accusing you of stupidity.

Law in our nation is derived from two sources, mainly; Law derived from the acts and bills passed by federal and state legislative bodies through statutory authority, which is known as codified law, and law derived from English Common Law plus our own Common Law as accumulated after our break from England.

Stare decisis is a legal principle that states past rulings by equivalent or higher courts of law should be respected (for example, a state appellate court would not want to overrule a decision of another panel of judges of the same court, nor could it overturn the ruling of a higher court, whether federal or state).

This principle of stare decisis ensures predictability and stability in the legal process, and keeps litigants from having to engage in rampant speculation about probable outcomes based on both statutory and common law principles.

Obama's statement is perfectly in keeping with the aspirations and ideals of our legal system, since our system strives to balance stability and organic change with time (if it didn't, only white land owners would have the ability to vote today, and it would not be illegal to intentionally block your neighbors view of the ocean by intentionally building a tall obstruction in their line of site.

It would be refreshing to see some logic and heft applied in some of these threads that bash Obama ad nauseum, day after day, hour after hour.
More...

You confuse changes in law made by legislative bodies or by constitutional amendments with judges issuing edicts to force their personal policy preferences on the country under the guise that they are constitutional rights.

Obama's brand of constitutional law is not law at all. it is basically a form of mob rule. He wants to return the Supreme Court to the horror days of Earl Warren and William Douglas, when you could predict who would win just by reading the names of the parties.

Obama, like his role model Hugo Chavez, wants a country where he is a dictator and all institutions, from the courts to the media to private business, all do his bidding. As we are seeing with the Chrysler bankruptcy, those who dare oppose his iron rule will be singled out for punishment.
 
I don't see how someone unable to memorize a speech could become a lawyer unless their grades were scaled or maybe simply assigned based on race or friendship with the professors.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GeJsyoKIabY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GeJsyoKIabY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

You confuse changes in law made by legislative bodies or by constitutional amendments with judges issuing edicts to force their personal policy preferences on the country under the guise that they are constitutional rights.

Obama's brand of constitutional law is not law at all. it is basically a form of mob rule. He wants to return the Supreme Court to the horror days of Earl Warren and William Douglas, when you could predict who would win just by reading the names of the parties.

Obama, like his role model Hugo Chavez, wants a country where he is a dictator and all institutions, from the courts to the media to private business, all do his bidding. As we are seeing with the Chrysler bankruptcy, those who dare oppose his iron rule will be singled out for punishment.
More...

Earl warren gave us miranda rights... Miranda rights make our system of justice civilized....

In any common law system there is statutory law/codified law and case law based on precedent....
 
Quote from jficquette:

I don't see how someone unable to memorize a speech could become a lawyer unless their grades were scaled or maybe simply assigned based on race or friendship with the professors.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GeJsyoKIabY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GeJsyoKIabY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
More...

It is a scary that he actually, paused read what the telepromter said, thought about, then said "In addition to John," which was completely out of place. Could he not just realize the teleprompter was screwed and proceed making the points he wanted to make. The funny thing is that at the Republican Convention the teleprompter get screwed up during Palin's speech but she didn't miss a beat. Look at Obama when the thing gets screwed up. Can we say, deer in the headlights.
 
OMG!!! OMG!!!

Obama read the teleprompter and stumbled because it was moving too fast!!!!!!!!!!


He clearly is stupid, never was President of Harvard Law Review, and devoid of any intellectual abilities!!!!!
 
Quote from drjekyllus:

It is a scary that he actually, paused read what the telepromter said
More...

Seriously? You really want to hang your hat on this whole 'teleprompter' deal?

We've got serious problems in this country, and we need to take a long, hard look at how we can fix them. I certainly don't agree with many of the solutions floated about Washington at present, but focusing on silly ass issues such as the damn teleprompter smacks of childishness, and does little to provide solutions in order to fix what really ails us as a nation.

- Spydertrader
 
Quote from ByLoSellHi:

OMG!!! OMG!!!

Obama read the teleprompter and stumbled because it was moving too fast!!!!!!!!!!


He clearly is stupid, never was President of Harvard Law Review, and devoid of any intellectual abilities!!!!!
More...

Apparently so. BTW, his law review gig was based on "politics" There are no academic requirements to named President of the Law Review.

"As president of the Harvard Law Review and a law professor in Chicago, Senator Barack Obama refined his legal thinking, but left a scant paper trail. His name doesn't appear on any legal scholarship."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top