Antonin Scalia

I would wholeheartedly agree with this, Law.

 

kerry had a lower GPA in college than bush. And he was lauded as a genius by the left, just like obama.

 

People with that much genuine talent and ambition generally have far better opportunities available than the obamas did.

Outside of teh education what independent thoughts has he expressed publically to make you think he's "very smart?" "Very smart" people generally don't get as brainwashed by doctrine as obama is. the other option is he knows all this crap he says is BS and still choses to say it. If that's what is going one perhaps he is as bright as you say. But that makes him a very devious and slimey person.

 

Easy one, Dros.

The first, and perhaps most predominant, symptom of a liberal is a largely unfounded sense of intellectual superiority.

They pride themselves on being the new Gnostics.

So, if liberals are for him = smart
If against = dumb

That's why no one will answer your statement (well, that and it's entirely and irrefutably true), though entirely reasonable and valid as it is.

 

Just out of curiosity, when a guy's job is to interpret and adjudicate the law, and he does so in a way that you find correct only rarely, why do you think he is smart?

 

Because there's almost always more than one way of interpreting the law, and while one may not agree all the time with Scalia, he is a tremendous advocate for his position, and he's a fantastic writer.

 

How is it certain that they benefited from affirmative action? Do we know for a fact that they were not competitive without their race being a factor?

 

You assumed that because Barack Obama didn't go to work for a law firm after he graduated law school that he didn't have that opportunity? Are you actually believing the words that you type? I'm glad I'm not into politics, man. Political bias makes people really [uck fay]ing stupid. Like full retard type shit.

Both Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson could have taken a job out of law school at a major law firm. In fact, Michelle did. That's how Barack and Michelle met. He was a summer associate at a firm, Sidley Austin, where she was a new associate. Barack became a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School after he graduated. This is a much much much much much harder job to get right out of law school than a job at a law firm. Obama could have done any number of things after law school. He could have gone to work for a firm right away. He could have gotten a job clerking for either a supreme court justice or a "feeder" federal judge. If the latter, he could have gotten a job clerking for a supreme court justice after he was done clerking with the the "feeder" federal judge. And once you've clerked for a supreme court justice, the world is essentially yours...you can pick where you want to work. But the world was essentially Obama's right as he graduated.* This is evidenced by the fact that he got a job as a law professor at a top 5 law school right after graduation. Which is really really hard to do. Law prof positions are highly sought after. They are the cushiest [dadgum] jobs on the face of the universe. And so every swinging [penis] lawyer that gets done clerking for a supreme court justice goes and becomes a law prof. Not everyone, mind you, but most of them. Those jobs are highly competitive.

Has my point been made sufficiently clear here? Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson may have each had 99 problems, but a "better opportunity" wasn't one.


*And, to be clear, I'm saying this as somebody who neither likes nor dislikes Obama. This is all just 100% indisputable fact.

 

I'll take this and run with it one more step. I would read a case in law school, and I know the facts and I know the issues and I know the arguments on both sides, and I've already formulated in my head what I believed to be the correct argument, right? Plaintiff should definitely win because of [x, y, z] reasons. Boom. Case closed. And then I would read the opinion that Scalia wrote -- concurring, dissenting, majority, whatever -- and I would be like "no, no, this guy is right. yup, this is the right answer." Even if his position was completely different to what I had already decided on.

That's how good Scalia is as a legal writer. And I've heard many others say basically the same thing as me. You might disagree with the guy, but probably not on first reading.

 

we know for a fact obama didn't make the honor roll once as an undergrad, yet he got into harvard law. i think we can assume that race was a factor. just like george bush being a bush was a factor for yale.

 

and why didn't he do all these things if he had the opportunity? instead he choses to become a community organizer. what would benefit the community more? him going to a top notch pro bono firm or him being a community organizer?

 

Wow.

1. When he was a "community organizer", he was also a professor at Chicago Law School.
2. Maybe he did all of the things he did because he wanted to go into politics. Well, yes, gosh shucky darn that makes sense because...
3. He was elected to the Illinois State Senate five years after he finished law school.

Sounds like the guy had a gameplan. Got any more brain busters for me?

Actually...please direct all future questions to Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Btw, great post. Brilliant stuff.

 

maybe you need to stop getting all your info off of wikipedia. he was not a law professor. he was a senior lecturer meaning he was not a full faculty member or on course for tenure. why must you inflate everything he does? i thought you were indifferent about the man?

 

Pretty common for folks not in academia to refer to all lecturers as "professors." If you want to get technical, very few faculty are actually full professors.

 

That is exactly the fence-riding bullshit answer I assumed I would get, although it came from an unexpected quarter.

"He's a genius, but he's never right" isn't a valid position. It's simply a ploy to make the counter argument sound more educated. I like the immediate follow up that all other originalists, especially Thomas, are stupid, a conclusion made legitimate by the previous tip of the cap to Scalia's wrong geniuosity.

 

I actually agree with Scalia many, many more times than I disagree with him. I like him alot, so "he's a genius, but he's never right" isn't my position at all.

 

I am indifferent. I don't think you recognize how biased you are.

Like IP said, I was not looking to see if he was on tenure track. He was teaching courses at a law school; receiving a paycheck for his services; and responding to "Professor Obama". He was teaching con law, which is the highest profile course in the curriculum* and the reason that thousands of civil procedure professors all around the country have inferiority complexes. He was a law professor.

*This is a fact. I loved Con Law I and disliked Con Law II, but both students and professors alike get bigger chubbies for con law than for any other course.

 

What in the world are you talking about?

You've got me as confused as Clarence Thomas trying to formulate a question during oral argument.

 

I also agree with Scalia much more than I disagree with him.

I didn't like his concurrence in the Raich case...thought it was a cop-out. So that's an example. But a man that agrees with the same supreme court justice in all cases isn't actually thinking the issues through for himself.

 

Sorry - I just again noticed this thread, and like KB, I'm a bit confused as to what the current issue actually is. Re-reading the posts has been of little help.

Is the issue regarding President Obama's level of intelligence?
The role that affirmative action played in either his or the First Lady's educational opportunities, if any?
The acceptability of career paths following the obtainment of a law degree?
Clarence Thomas is black and stupid? Or stupid because he's black? Or is he just stupid and happens to be black? Is that even legal to say? Or was it President Obama? Or neither?

Could someone smarter than I point me in the general direction as to where things stand?