Antonin Scalia

What do you want from me? You want me to fax him over a math problem?

How about this: I'm not smart enough to get into Harvard Law School. Which means I'm not smart enough to get on Law Review at HLS. Which means I'm not smart enough to be the editor of of the law review at HLS. Obama did all three. If this means nothing to you, Harvard Law Review is kind of a big deal: Harvard Law Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

how does a guy who didn't make the honor roll once in college get into harvard law school? maybe smarts aren't the answer?

 

I am seriously addicted to it - only making meager attempts at its proper or infrequent use.

 

I don't have any info on that. Maybe he tests well.

Yale Law School is actually the hardest to get into. So props to both Bill and Hillary on that front. Of course, Bill was already a Rhodes Scholar, which is even more impressive.

 

I still use it a ton. I would say I've cut it back from using it in 30% of my sentences to now using it in 20%. But that's about as low as I'm willing to go.

 

The same guy who graduated with honors from Harvard Law.

I don't know where Republicans got this idea that Obama isn't very smart or good in debates. It sort of developed at the initial part of his presidency as they were searching for ways to cut him down and, once Republicans have created a myth, everyone seems to buy in, you have Obama the guy who every politician will destroy in a debate. Gingrich is, supposedly, the one who would make Obama look like a fool and he's nothing impressive in a debate without a racuous crowd to cheer for him. Without a crowd, he's just a kook blathering every other line about the "elite" and "liberal" media. Oh, I have also learned that the teleprompter was invented in 2008 and Obama is the only one who uses it.

As for Scalia, I rarely agree with him, but there's no doubting his intelligence. Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, leaves plenty of doubt. Setting the record for longest period without asking a question is mind boggling.

 

1. You may or may not be smart enough for Harvard Law School, but that's no standard - thousands of people who are entirely capable of excelling in that environment are turned away each year. So, if intelligence alone is the only qualifier for entrance, then that leaves connections / legacy. And that's widely believed to be the only possible means of entrance that Obama had, as his transcript from Columbia is purportedly less-than-stellar....although no one can be certain of that, because he has refused to release any of his academic-related records, including all grades, transcripts or entrance exam scores (including the SAT and LSAT).

Despite this, an Obama quote, as taken from a letter which he penned while serving on The Harvard Review, and as was recited in Remnick's (a former editor of The New Yorker) biography of the President. While Remnick obviously intended the included quote as a means of exampling a young Obama's deft handling of a divisive issue on race, he unwittingly brought much else to light, as well, in re-printing it:

- Barack Obama, 1992, "The Bridge"

2. As to Obama's time as Editor of the Harvard Law Review, well, let's just say it's doubtful that his achievement was based on merit, alone, as this NYT article from 1990 points out (Link:First Black Elected to Head Harvard's Law Review - NYTimes.com

That Obama was elected, not appointed - a stark contrast when considering that for decades, one could only be made the editor of the HLR as a result of having the highest grades (read: merit) - is an important distinction to note, I think.

And why was that system changed, exactly? Fortunately, the article also sheds some light on that matter as well:

The reason that Barack Obama was made the Editor of the HLR was because he was black - and his "election" was intended as little more than being the best and most easily deployed means of quelling a burgeoning and divisive split which was beginning to cause distinct friction amongst both the faculty and staff of the Law School. And, when coupled with the fact that he didn't write a single article, nor note, letter, rebuttal, OpEd or anything whatsoever during his time there, it's curious that you would use his service as Editor as "proof" of his (alleged) super-intelligence.

It seems only to prove the consequences, and quite brilliantly, of the result of affirmative action, alone.

Of course, I'm intelligent. Look at me holding this stick while smiling. What more proof could you racists need? ​

 

Racist.

IMO JMO IYAM IMHO GBO VFL GTFO

 

I didn't know any of this. I mean, I had a hunch that affirmative action might have helped him get in HLS (I mean, this is what affirmative action does), but I didn't want to assume it because him doing really well on a test didn't seem implausible.

I had no such hunch about the Law Review thing. Law Review is usually 100% merit based and quite competitive. That quote seems kind of fishy. Why would he use the term "affirmative action" in the context of talking about getting on Law Review? That implies that a law review diversity policy was in place for Harvard's Law Review. But I'm not buying that.

The part about him getting elected and not appointed to the position of editor is probably completely true and that probably was for political reasons, as you suggested. But that part doesn't bother me as much. If he got on Law Review because of color-blind merit, and then became editor because he is black, I can live with that. But I don't like the idea that he actually got on Law Review because he is black and not because of merit. And, again, I'm not 100% sure I'm convinced, for reasons I stated above.

 

I didn't know most of it until a few weeks ago, when the subject of his intelligence came up in another thread.

But here's a couple of questions for everyone, including you KB:

What difference does it make if he got all of the breaks because he's black, if any? Why would he / his administration / supporters want to be so seemingly secretive about even the hinted possibility of it, if true? Given that this is precisely the type of manipulated ascent that the totality of all affirmative action laws have long intended - shouldn't Obama's resulting rise be the single greatest success story, and one that should be both publicly and frequently applauded?

Seriously, why aren't the willing - eager, even - to get this out there?

Especially when also considering that First Lady Michelle Obama was similarly aided - not once, but twice - first, in being admitted into Princeton, and later, in gaining admission into Harvard Law. In fact, Christopher Andersen's biography of the couple, "Barack and Michelle" admits as much:

“Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good enough for an Ivy League school, Michelle nevertheless applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.” And she was accepted to both.

My favorite Michelle factoid is this: only three years away from having graduated from Harvard, she left the only firm she ever worked for, and shorty thereafter, gave up her law license. Yeah, that's the same law license that hundreds, if not thousands, of more qualified candidates were denied the opportunity to earn themselves, ostensibly, because they weren't black.

Racism hasn't lost one ounce of strength in this country - it's just being applied in a more societally palatable form, and leaving me to assert that Dr. King's hope that people would someday be judged solely on, "the content of their character and not the color of their skin" has left little impact on anyone, anywhere or of any consequence. Well, that is save MTV - who at least repeat his words during Black History Month, if only as a segue between Black-Eyed Peas videos and TRL.

So, I guess his hope endures, afterall. Somewhat.

 

My high school teacher who taught me how to use it told me I wasn't allowed to do it more than once in any given paragraph. And I'm tempted to. Often.

 

Man, you would be a great understudy of Karl Rove. That was a great hit piece of taking bits of information and then finding the most negative angle possible to construe them. Harvard Law Review was looking for more minority editors? Well, that obviously means that Obama got the job because he is black. Michelle Obama applied to Princeton and got in despite her not being qualified? Because she was black, of course. I notice how you didn't add the fact that she followed an older brother to Princeton and graduated with honors, but, hey, it doesn't fit the narrative.

Oh, and that terrible person, whose acceptance into Princeton somehow denied thousands of others a shot at a law degree, didn't give up her law license. She put it on inactive status in order to go work for the Mayor of Chicago and then as an Associate Dean at the University of Chicago, which is quite a bit different than the bill of goods you're selling.

As I said, Karl Rove would be proud of the hatchet job here. Hell, like Rove, you could throw in the story of the black child, two, in fact!

 

I laughed.

 

I didn't say he was dumb, just not some genius. and yes not being able to make literate points without someone writing the material for you does suggest you aren't all that bright. I don't know why democrats have to turn every debate into a "our guys a genius and your guy is an idiot." for the past 20 years we've heard that reagan, bush, palin, etc were all idiots and that kerry, clinton, gore, and obama were all geniuses.

and graduating with honors from harvard law doesn't make you overly smart either. the grade inflation in those schools ensures most of the class will graduate with honors. getting in is the hard part. as i said, not dumb, but not a genius either.

 

it's absolutely not 100% merit based. it's a vote by your peers. i.e. the guy who is best at campaigning gets it. we all know obama is good at that. and they've interviewed other guys who were on the review with him and many suggested having the first black head was a major factor which is understandable. particurally for a bunch of people with white guilt.

 

if obama and his wife are so brilliant and talented why did they chose to go work for 40K a year after getting two very prestigious degrees?

 

Advised to do so because of long-term benefits.

opcorn:

I always just laugh when people think there isn't a machine on both sides of the aisle that see potential of young politicians and advises/connects them with people to make sure they are well-groomed.

(note - not suggesting Manchurian Candidate here)

 

Just took a test that included some of his writing. Can't remember what it was called.

 

Thanks, Un. I'll take them in the order in which you presented them:

Who do you think taught Rove?

By this, I assume you to mean that I, "Made an entirely reasonable and valid conclusion based on a careful review of copious amounts of easily verifiable information derived from publicly reputable sources, and which I cited in order to allow for your own independent review and rebuttal." That you don't like the natural conclusion which are clearly drawn from the involved facts, while somewhat understandable, is immaterial, really. They are what they are, for well or ill, and despite our individual preferences. That's both the beauty - or tragedy, depending upon which toe they land - of "facts" and "logic", alike.

You are correct - I do assert that this race played a predominant, if not singular, role in his being named as Editor of the HLR.

Perhaps I erred in saying that Harvard Law School was, at the time of his election as Editor, not as embroiled in a near boiling over of issues related to race, and how the University was, or was not, addressing them. But I don't think so, when reviewing the statements of his fellow classmates - both white and black, left and right - when discussing the climate of their time there:

From PBS' Frontline (perhaps that organization's liberal bent with be of sufficient quality to serve as a trustworthy source, apparently, where the NYT(!) has previously failed to do so):

Or, if you prefer this, from an African-American female who also attended Harvard during this time:

Or, a more compelling recounting of the events at Harvard Law in the early 1990's can be found here by reading an article by David French of The National Review
(Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-theory-and-harvard-law-school-david-french):

I think that most would agree that these statements, both directly and anecdotally, seems to suggest a charged atmosphere of race, and quite strongly, doesn't it?

But, even if race was clearly a polarizing issue in Harvard's Law School during his time there, admittedly, that still does not meant that his election as Editor resulted from his race, alone.

But this accounting of the process by which Obama was elected as the first black editor of the HLR certainly seems to state that this was their directly intended aim:

What, you may ask, are my sources for this commentary, which seem so damning to your position of denial that Obama's election as Editor of the HLR was based in whole, or in large part, on the tenants of affirmative action, and in turn, his race?

Fair question.

Would you believe Harvard's own school newspaper, The Harvard Crimson - from whence this commentary was derived? (Link: Law Review Debates Affirmative Action Policy | News | The Harvard Crimson)

Well, then there's this video of the future President stumping for Derek Bell, or as I refer to him "David Duke's dyslexic doppelganger):
[YOUTUBE]qirsDdFEIgs[/YOUTUBE]
Psst! Barack, let me tell you about my new sci-fi story where white Americans and Jews sell blacks as slaves to an alien race. (Don't click this link, Un, you won't like it: The Space Traders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

So, yes, I believe that Obama was elected to the editor's chair at HLR largely or entirely because he was black, both as a means to appease the increasingly warring factions of Harvard Law School and to quell its escalation, and from any side (left v. right or black v. white), but also, just as they had explicitly intended in the changing of the criteria away from merit, alone, to include exemptions for race and gender.

Continued...

 

There are three (3) glaring problems with your rebuttal:

1. For several years, "legacy" students have become an increasingly small segment of all Ivy League admissions, overall. Today, only those legacies of highly-stature alums can use this as an advantage for admission, but such would remain uncertain, even in those instances.

From the NYT:
"Over the long haul, though, legacy enrollment has declined. In 1980, 24 percent of Yale’s freshman class had a parent who had attended, but in the class of 2014, 13 percent were legacy students. At most Ivy League schools, 10 percent to 15 percent of those who end up enrolling are the children of former students." (Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/being-a-legacy-has-its-burden.html?pagewanted=all)

2. More daunting to your Michelle Obama's admission-as-legacy argument (I appreciate that you didn't even attempt a defense of her admission as being based on merit - saved us both some time) is the fact that most colleges also assign a "weight" of importance in regards to legacy applications in direct proportion to the closeness of the association between alum and applicant, meaning, a dual-parental legacy is stronger than a single parent legacy, so on and so forth - and a sibling legacy (such as Michelle Obama had) is typically viewed as being weighted in much the same manner as second-generational legacies (i.e. extended family members) - meaning, the lowest and least important link of legacy status.

3. Michelle Obama's brother attended Princeton on an athletic scholarship, and neither on academic achievement nor merit....further diluting any significance which you place on her "legacy status" as being the reason for her admission to Princeton, and despite what she herself has since admitted was a largely insufficient record of academic achievement.

To most, her legacy status - being one of the least influential of all, and by each standard previously mentioned - would not be of sufficient strength to explain her seemingly undeserving qualifications for admission. Did her brother's status hurt her chances, or was it enough to have gained her admission had race not been considered? Almost certainly not, in either instance.

And it's actually pretty obvious that such is the case, that is unless you are either so naive or dogmatic to refuse that race was the primary, if not singular, aspect of importance.

Finally, in regards to Michelle Obama's law license, you misunderstood my point, I think. It was this: that after having received all of these (alleged) affirmative action breaks along the way - which, by definition, prevented the admission of another candidate, of any race or gender, instead - she only attempted to apply those benefits toward the practice of law for a mere 5 years (graduated in 1988, placed license on "inactive" status in 1993).

So, despite not being eligible to enter the race, she was not only allowed to do so, but "won", only to then throw the trophy in the trash.

More simply, other than it's leading to her meeting Barack, the breaks which she was given seem to have been wasted on her.