To: markomalley
IIRC, Obama wasn’t even tenure track; he was only an adjunct professor. (Which means hired by the year, or by the semester. A fill-in professor, till they can afford a full-timer. Distinguished position, eh?)
2 posted on
09/27/2013 2:34:50 AM PDT by
Hetty_Fauxvert
(FUBO, and the useful idiots you rode in on!)
To: markomalley
"Asked whether President Obama, a former constitutional law professor..."He was never a professor of anything. He was a part-time instructor, about one step above a graduate assistant and two above the guy who cleans the chalkboards and sharpens the pencils.
3 posted on
09/27/2013 2:41:07 AM PDT by
2ndDivisionVet
(You can't invade the mainland US There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
To: markomalley
In all fairness, 0bama’s IQ is off the chart. That's right I said it. The chart doesn't go low enough to register his intelligence.
4 posted on
09/27/2013 3:00:30 AM PDT by
Conspiracy Guy
(What's the frequency, Kenneth?)
To: markomalley
The only way to make less at stake is to reduce the power and scope of the federal government.
5 posted on
09/27/2013 3:03:13 AM PDT by
Tax-chick
(I'm not crazy ... I'm just not you.)
To: markomalley
Kagan may be smarter than the Wise Latina, but she strikes me as more of an intractable, Constitution-bending ideologue.
To: markomalley
I wonder which one blackmailed Roberts into siding with obama care?
I'm betting it was kagan.
9 posted on
09/27/2013 3:18:44 AM PDT by
Falcon4.0
To: markomalley
“President Obama, a former constitutional law professor,...”
Bullcrap.
How many times do we have to debunk this lie?
10 posted on
09/27/2013 3:31:48 AM PDT by
Peet
(Oderint dum metuant)
To: markomalley
One doesn’t need knowledge and intellect to persuade other justices to a particular point of view when one has the Justices’ FBI file and tax records.
11 posted on
09/27/2013 3:34:55 AM PDT by
TN4Liberty
(My tagline disappeared so this is my new one.)
To: markomalley
By the time Zer0’s term is over we may have 1 or 2 more new faces/asses sitting up there. You know which way they’ll be leaning.
Won’t that be a fine kettle of fish.
13 posted on
09/27/2013 3:48:10 AM PDT by
Vinnie
To: markomalley
Jamie, why are you a practitioner of "Repetitio est mater studiorum?"
For example, you stated: "Asked whether President Obama, a former constitutional law professor,..."
CZAR B.O. was a GUEST LECTURER and like so many others you claim he was a constitutional law professor. NOT TRUE!
To: markomalley
but at least we have obama’s writing while first black editor of the Harvard Law Review on which to judge his brilliance
oh, wait .....
15 posted on
09/27/2013 4:22:28 AM PDT by
silverleaf
(Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordion.)
To: markomalley
What smart, competent jurist from either party would want to submit themselves to the horror show that is the confirmation process today?
To: markomalley
There is a simple reason for this. Judges who understand the law and are articulate may be able to convince other judges hearing cases to change how they vote. They may also write opinions that influence other judges around the country. There is very little chance that those on the left can be reasoned with. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's mind closed so long ago, it's rusted shut. She decided all cases decades ago based on what she wishes the Constitution said. She neither listens nor reads. Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are shockingly stupid, hard-left ideologues who have no interest in facts or law other than to support the position they have already decided to support. Stephen G. Breyer is capable of thinking, but it would take exceptional eloquence to convince him of anything. Anthony M. Kennedy is the real swing vote, and he may be the only one whose vote can be influenced by intelligence. It's sad what has happened to that once great body.
23 posted on
09/27/2013 5:55:12 AM PDT by
Pollster1
("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
To: markomalley
His arguments would have likely made the difference in many decisions by the Supreme Court. Including DC v. Heller.
Bork didn't believe in the individual right to keep and bear arms. He thought it only protected a "collective" right to participate in a government militia. Whenever he was questioned about it, he refused to discuss it.
Anthony Kennedy was nominated and confirmed in Bork's place. Kennedy voted joined the majority -- 5-4 -- to affirm that the 2nd Amendment protected the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Seriously, folks: Bork was not the conservative that he is made out to be. We are quite fortunate he wasn't confirmed.
24 posted on
09/27/2013 8:33:50 AM PDT by
justlurking
(tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
To: markomalley
Oh no, this is America 2013: it's so much more important to have “wise latinas” and lesbians on the Supreme Court than it is to have qualified jurists.
Identity politics trumps all.
How can you call that stupid?
25 posted on
09/27/2013 8:38:12 AM PDT by
mojito
(Zero, our Nero.)
To: markomalley; Perdogg; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; ...
26 posted on
09/27/2013 8:55:49 AM PDT by
BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
To: markomalley
Cass Sunstein on SCOTUS?
(*cold shiver*)
27 posted on
09/27/2013 8:58:24 AM PDT by
BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
To: markomalley
Gee, ya think? When the two qualifications are an Ivy League degree and a gender confusion problem...
29 posted on
09/27/2013 11:20:11 AM PDT by
riri
(Plannedopolis-look it up. It's how the elites plan for US to live.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson