Imagine if all you law review big thinker/writers had to defend the silly notions of egghead law practice? Now you know why he got thrashed by Bobby Rush in the Congressional Race.

Limbaugh is ranting about this today. Big Deal.

I know this might sound foreign to you, since it is not the Sarah Palin view of "being in charge of the Senate" but the President only nominates members of the Supreme Court. Then it goes to the judiciary committee. Then to the Senate.

Here's the transcript as he talks on the subject of reparations which was a hot topic a few years back.

Here's the thud on the hysterical argument:

"OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. "

Yes, he gets to nominate the member and then send him/her to the Democratic controlled judiciary committee and then to the Democratic controlled Senate. Thanks for the clarification, I feel better about this now.

Ron, are we to thank Democrats for Alito and Roberts?

And Clarence Thomas, using JRP (that phantom) logic.

quote:

Originally posted by jombl:
I'll betcha' he's a lot more optimistic today, on the verge of the Presidency, than he was then in Springfield, Illinois.

I am surprised you did not use italics or bold type. Especially when you cut off the 2nd sentence where he says "the institution just isn't structured that way".

Oh please. Any 3 law review editors could come up with the most inane ideas. If it wasn't for them, we would not have courses in Literature and the Law, Feminist Jurisprudence, and other philosophical exercises in the law.

But for the economist, free thinking is acceptable, as long as you can come up with a "rationale" based on mathematics.

The truth should prevail here, what is “scary” about the original post is that is completely misrepresents Obama’s position.

To paraphrase directly from WBEZ:

“Over the weekend, someone pulled excerpts for the Jan 2001 interview and posted them to You Tube—and today, the posting caught fire on political blogs, the Drudge Report, and Fox News. When heard in the context of the whole show, Obama’s position is distinctly misrepresented by the You Tube posting. Taken in context, Obama is evaluating the historical successes and failures of the Civil Rights movement—and, ironically, he says the Supreme Court was a failure in cases that it took on a role of redistributing resources.”

If you use YouTube for your news, your “news” is useless!

If you are truly interested, listen to the original interview, from the original source, without Hannity-style distortion.

Don't misrepresent! Here is the truth

HA!!

I'm not certain what JRP does for a living, but I hope he isn't an attorney. Wouldn't want him/her accompanying me to court with info gleaned off the internet like some modern day Pierre Salinger. What an idiot.

When will we as a country realize that trying to smear the Messiah is futile. It will never work.

All hail Barrack.

Democrats

I'll just slink away now.