Do you still have the class syllabus that he wrote? Probably worth a tidy sum of money.....
I doubt it, i do have a few signed pictures and a pic of him with me and my future wife at my graduation.
Do you still have the class syllabus that he wrote? Probably worth a tidy sum of money.....
Obama should nominate Bill Clinton.
Wasn't Anthony Kennedy nominated by Reagan and confirmed by a Democratic Senate? Kennedy eventually replaced Robert Bork as a nominee.As soon as you link a SCOTUS nomination by a lame duck president that was confirmed by an opposition Senate.
So . . . favoring the rich while enjoying their largess would be OK, but criticizing them while taking their gifts wouldn't be?Did Scalia spent a lot of time vilifying the ultra rich only to spend half his time enjoying all their trappings on taxpayer's dime? Didn't think so.
I wonder if any GOP candidate will buck this trend.Pinned Tweet
Ted Cruz @tedcruz 2h2 hours ago
Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.
Yes he was, I was in his class.
Statement Regarding Barack Obama
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Pinned Tweet
Ted Cruz @tedcruz 2h2 hours ago
Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.
Yes he was, I was in his class.
Statement Regarding Barack Obama
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Always hilarious when IMCC gets owned like this. I'm sure he'll disappear from this thread now.
And LOL at a prison guard mocking the CV of a Columbia and Harvard educated attorney and professor who became President. Only on this board.
So he was "considered" a lecturer? OK. Whatever. Sounds like a gift title to me.
LOL, you've double downed. What's your title?
So he was "considered" a lecturer? OK. Whatever. Sounds like a gift title to me.
Seriously.....anyone with common sense knows that our Douche Bag POTUS will find the most Lefty wacko possible to nominate. Probably will be a good Lawyer with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Or better yet nominate himself. This is very serious that we get a level headed nominee. But I don't expect that from Obama.
I disagree. I think the Republicans would expend too much political capital blocking for a full year. It would be near unprecedented.It would depend upon who Obama nominates, of course. But even so, I really doubt they will let a lame duck president -- especially one with his record -- change the balance of the SCOTUS.
So he was "considered" a lecturer? OK. Whatever. Sounds like a gift title to me.
I give information, just not too much information. Sorry.
He works at the prison in Coralville in some capacity. Some say prison guard, some have said he's a janitor. All we know for sure is that he's the dumbest cockwallet on this board.
Good. It's a vacancy that needs to be filled as soon as possible.
Sounds like a gift title to me..
"Dumbest Cockwallet on HROT" isn't a gift title. IMCC earned that one with thread performances the likes of which we're seeing tonight.
Again. So much HATE from you when I simply said Obama was a "lecturer" and not a professor. Why so much hate? Does it personally offend you to the bone that someone doesn't like your man as much as you?
I find it fascinating how visceral you become at moments like this.
Again. So much HATE from you when I simply said Obama was a "lecturer" and not a professor. Why so much hate? Does it personally offend you to the bone that someone doesn't like your man as much as you?
I find it fascinating how visceral you become at moments like this.
Did you mean favoring a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Sometimes I forget that Democrats can never be hypocrites because they have no values to begin with. ( I've been told this by one of my left leaning drones for years )So . . . favoring the rich while enjoying their largess would be OK, but criticizing them while taking their gifts wouldn't be?
Obama says he will nominate someone in his remarks on Scalia.
Absolutely. Chuck is a loyal Repubber. It will never happen.$5 says somehow the Senate (Chuck Grassley), blocks Obama from getting a replacement on the Supreme Court on in the next 9 months.
Imagine what candidate POTUS Sanders can find! THAT would be the ultimate GOP horror story!Seriously.....anyone with common sense knows that our Douche Bag POTUS will find the most Lefty wacko possible to nominate. Probably will be a good Lawyer with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Or better yet nominate himself. This is very serious that we get a level headed nominee. But I don't expect that from Obama.
Did you mean favoring a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Sometimes I forget that Democrats can never be hypocrites because they have no values to begin with. ( I've been told this by one of my left leaning drones for years )
BorkPlease name all the potential Supreme Court justices nominated by republicans that did not get an up or down vote in the full Senate. TIA.
GOP won't have a choice. If Obama wants he can at least appoint a temporary justice during a Senste recess. Either way this thing is getting filled.I wonder what odds Vegas gives on a new Justice being confirmed before the election this Fall?
I'd think there is almost 0% of this happening. This will play bigger to many than the POTUS election. Come on Obama......appoint a liberal!![]()
Bork
No, he cannot act responsibly Lone...unless he allows the GOP leadership to make his nomination for him. The GOP is not going to allow Obama the privilege...They have stone-walled him every step of the way the past 7 years, they ain't giving up now.It would depend upon the makeup of he Senate, just like it does now. The president can make this a political football, or he can act responsibly.
"unqualified" is a rather subjective term. The position has become so damned political all candidates are qualified/unqualified.There is no need to rush into any confirmation if an unqualified candidate is nominated. In fact it is up to the Senate to determine how many SC justices there are. It has varied from 5 to 10 over the years.
The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.
This would be a great time to change the number to 8. Gridlock in the SCOTUS could go hand in hand with the rest of the gridlock between Congress and the Executive Branch. The less that gets done by these clowns the better off the American taxpayers are.
Seriously, the Senate has gone pretty easy on the two hags Obama has brought to the court so far.
On the eve of a very close election, I don't see the GOP rolling the dice on such a controversial idea.There is no need to rush into any confirmation if an unqualified candidate is nominated. In fact it is up to the Senate to determine how many SC justices there are. It has varied from 5 to 10 over the years.
The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.
This would be a great time to change the number to 8. Gridlock in the SCOTUS could go hand in hand with the rest of the gridlock between Congress and the Executive Branch. The less that gets done by these clowns the better off the American taxpayers are.