Obama names supreme judge

Based on what?

Talk about a misuse of a quote there Possum..



Let's see what she REALLY said..
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml


It seems that ole Possum doesn't mind eliminating major parts of paragraphs that include dates and then contracting the next paragraph into the previous one to give a false impression of context.

For that to have any relevance one would need to check the stats for how many Italian, Greeks, Poles there are in the US compared to African Americans and Hispanics.

Oh.. wait.. there are 2 Italian Americans on the Supreme Court, Alito and Scalia. And NO Hispanics. Italian Americans only make up 5.6% of the US population. Hispanics make up 15% of the US population.

Hmmm....... Interesting, isn't it?

Her background.

Isn't the the same reason Scalia gives for why his decisions are better? His background?

Being a Latina is considered background?

Is she saying Lanita's are superior to all others?

Like I said, I may have misunderstood some of what she has (was) been getting at. But overall, I just get the feeling she thinks justice would be better served more humanely if more women and specifically more Latino women would be on the bench than has been the case with mostly white males to date.

Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’

I am not denying that there should be more (qualified) diversity in our judges to lend a more even handed playing field in the judicial field, but I don't know she just seems to want a dominance of women Latinos (nothing wrong with women Latinos not my point) serving in the Judaical system to make the renderings more fair in the overall justice system , but like I said, I could be completely misunderstanding her. She does seem highly intelligent, and sometimes I don't quite get everything. I also don't quite know how to word what I am getting at. In any case, the link to the article up above is a full text of her lecture to analyze on the subject.

Sonia has been backing off that statement. Moreover, her decisions show a moderate judicial temperment. Frankly, I am a bit troubled with the statement in question. Justice should be blind, just as our government should be secular.

All in all, any fair assessment would say that Sonia is supremely, if not perfectly, qualified for the job.

Parados wrote:

As of September 20, 1998, of the then 195 circuit court judges only two were African-American women and two Hispanic women. Of the 641 district court judges only twelve were African-American women and eleven Hispanic women. African-American women comprise only 1.56% of the federal judiciary and Hispanic-American women comprise only 1%. No African-American, male or female, sits today on the Fourth or Federal circuits. And no Hispanics, male or female, sit on the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, District of Columbia or Federal Circuits.

Sort of shocking, isn't it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go. Unfortunately, there are some very deep storm warnings we must keep in mind. In at least the last five years the majority of nominated judges the Senate delayed more than one year before confirming or never confirming were women or minorities.

*****************************************************************

I am sure that Parodos knows little or nothing about African-American success in schools.

Could it be that many African-Americans do not succeed in school because the prevailing ethos is-_Why do you want to study? Why do you want to act white?.

The African-Americans who get past this barrier do not do well at all.

Note:

The situation in law schools given these statistics is predictable. Students of color have a disproportionately lower law school application, enrollment, and graduation rate. In the fall of 2005, white students constituted more than 65% of all applications to ABA-accredited law schools, compared to 10.4% of African-Americans, 8.3% of Asians, and 8.2% of all Hispanic groups. Between 2000 and 2004, the number of first-year African-American law students rose from 3,402 to 3,457, a mere 1.6% increase in a four-year period. Unfortunately, 2005 brought a 20% drop in that number to only 3,107 - the smallest class of African-American 1Ls since 1990-91; indeed, in 2005, fewer than 400 Native-Americans enrolled in law school. Moreover, in the past decade, law school enrollment for students of color has remained around 19-21% of all law school applicants, but most minority groups experienced slippage in total law school enrollment during the past decade. American Indians/Alaska Natives had a 5.3% decline, that is, 57 fewer students in law school in 2005-06 compared to 1995-96. For that same period, African-American enrollment fell 6.7%, Mexican Americans dropped 3.4%, and Puerto Ricans plunged 24%. By contrast, Asian/Pacific Islanders' enrollment skyrocketed 45.8%, with 3,533 more attending law school in 2005-06 than 10 years earlier. The report noted African-Americans tend to score lower on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) than other groups, which diminishes their chances of being admitted to law school, and law students of color have a higher attrition rate than white law students. In 1998, the percentage of students of color remaining in law school by their second year was 86.8% compared to 93.6% of white students. In 1998, the percentage of students of color remaining in law school by their third year was 84.7% compared to 91.2% of white students.

As students transition from the academy to the profession, the report noted, bar exam passage rates for students of color are generally lower than whites. A 1998 report found that African-Americans have the lowest bar passage rate, at 77.6%. Asians pass the bar exam at a rate of 91.9%, while white students have a 96.7% passage rate. A 2005 report noted that African-Americans represent 12.1% of the U.S. population and only 6.8% of the law degrees conferred. That same report found Hispanics and Latinos represent 12.5% of the U.S. population and only 6.9% of the law degrees awarded. Students of color graduating from law school in 2004 secured only 19.7% of the 30,035 legal jobs available nationwide.

*******************************************************************

African-Americans have the LOWEST bar passage rate at 77.6%
They don't do as well as others on the LSAT
Asians 91.9%

Whites 96.7%

As the information above attests--12.5% of the population produce 6 .9% of the law degrees.
*******************************************************************

Additionally,So why do African Americans perform so poorly in law school? 50% end up in the bottom 10% of their respective law school class.

Some argue that because of AA, black students enter school with numbers lower than any other racial group (which is statistically true) and that because blacks don't have magical powers they aren't able to OVERachieve in law school in the same way white students with sub-170 LSATs wouldn't be expected to compete on the same level (as a group) with Harvard and Yale students with higher numbers.

That's quite an argument there Possum.

So you are arguing that Clarence Thomas is unqualified for the Supreme Court which would lead one to think that anyone that consistently votes as he does on the court would also be unqualified.

I guess could lead one to the conclusion that conservatives generally are unqualified for the court. OK.. If you really want to make that argument Possum. Go ahead.

You are losing your mind, Parados. Obviously, there are some blacks who can achieve and can graduate from a law school like Harvard or Yale.

Clarence Thomas( However, an Affirmative Action admission)

Barack Hussein Obama( an Affirmative Action admission)

Sotomayor( an Affirmative Action admission)

I don't think you know very much about Affirmative Action. By the way, ASSHOLE, my name is Genoves. If you think you can intimidate me by calling me names, you are sadly mistaken. Did you learn the AD Hominem crap from Joe the Jag? I call him Joe the Jag since he posted some insulting comments about me--Like you, he was afraid to argue without calling names.

I don't allow that. Call me names,be ready to be defecated on, plentifully and often.

Your logic is absurd. The statistics in my last post DO NOT say that Afro-Americans cannot graduate from a good law school with a high rank. They say that not many of them do it.

I suppose you are unable to discover how African-Americans do in the highly competitive and MERIT BASED world of Big Law.

How many Afro-Americans are PARTNERS in Big Law, Parados?

If we doled out the numbers by population, they would make up 12.5% of the partners.

Barely 1% of the big law partners are Afro-Americans.

What? Racism!!! Pure and simple.

No- Big Law wants diversity. American business wants diversity. But Afro-Americans who are top lawyers are quite rare>

Note:

D.C. Dispatch June 20, 2006
Most young black lawyers, according to a new study, do not fare well in large law firms precisely because of the racial preferences that get them hired in the first place.
by Stuart Taylor Jr.

How Racial Preferences Backfire
Article Tools
sponsored by:

E-mail Article
Printer Format
Most"if not all"of the nation's leading law firms seek to become more diverse by using "very large hiring preferences" for African-Americans and smaller preferences for Hispanics. So most of their newly hired minority lawyers have relatively weak academic records that would have brought rejection had they been white.

But these preferences are at best a mixed blessing"and are often a curse"for their recipients. After a year or two on the job, most minority associates at big firms get less desirable assignments and less training than their white counterparts. Many become discouraged and embittered. Young black lawyers leave big firms "at two or three times the rate of whites."

These problems plague minority lawyers precisely because of the racial preferences that got most of them hired. By lowering the big firms' usual hiring standards, large preferences bring "disparities in expectations and performance that ultimately hurt the intended beneficiaries."

These are among the conclusions copiously documented by Richard Sander, a UCLA law professor, in a 66-page article soon to be published in the North Carolina Law Review. It is laden with meticulous statistical analyses of six publicly available data sets, including surveys of thousands of law students and lawyers at various stages in their lives and careers.

Sander's blockbuster article, "The Racial Paradox of the Corporate Law Firm," rejects the conventional wisdom that racism explains why most young black lawyers in large firms do not fare well, and why barely 1 percent of big-firm partners"compared with 8 percent of new hires"are black.

The paradox, Sander says, is that "aggressive racial preferences at the law-school and law-firm level tend to undermine in some ways the careers of young attorneys and ... contribute to ... the failure of the underlying goal of this whole process"the integration of elite firms at the partnership level."

Sander's analysis is a natural sequel to his stunning 115-page Stanford Law Review article in 2004 showing how the enormous racial preferences used by all selective law schools backfire against black students.

By producing huge black-white gaps in entering academic credentials, these preferences ensure that black students are clustered near the bottom of their classes, with only 8 percent ranking in the top half. This in turn explains why more than 43 percent of entering black law students never become lawyers. (See my December 4, 2004, column, "Do Racial Preferences Reduce the Number of Black Lawyers)

***************************************************************

Recap--Only 8% of blacks rank in the top half of their classes in law school.

43% of entering black law students(42%????-Affirmative Actiion--You know) never become lawyers.

Blacks leave law firms at two and three times the rates of whites>

******************************************************************

That is your education on Afro-American lawyers, Parados.

Funny that you should whine about your name, Possum. You have pretty consistently failed to use mine correctly under all the different names you have used.


Barrack Obama - graduated Magna Cum Laude

Sotomayor - graduated Summa Cum Laude

Clarence Thomas - Nope.. didn't graduate that high from Law school.


In the same post you call others names Possum?

Well Parados< I am more ready than anyone to debate--do a real debate--one without any AD Hominems( used so often by Joe from Chicago and Setanta). The ball is in your court.

By the way, Mr. Parados, You state that Barrack Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude. Are you talking about Law School or Columbia Undergraduate School?

If you are talking about Harvard Law School, you are correct. Of course, you realizew that there is a range in Magna. There is also a Summa above it.


But if you are speaking of Columbia Undergraduate School, you are going near a very annoying problem for Obama. He did not graduate Magna from Columbia. This is a very telling problem! Obama cried out for Transparency but he does not tell us about his acceptance at Harvard anywhere in his two autobiographies--At least, he does not give us the numbers.

The fact is that Obama, because he was not a top student at Columbia, DID NOT have the combination of LSAT score and undergraduate grades that would be necessary for anyone to be admitted to Harvard Law School UNLESS IT WAS UNDER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

Note: Mr. Parados---

In contrast with the rest of Mr. Obama's life story, little is known about his college experience. He attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years before transferring to Columbia in 1981. The move receives only a mention in Mr. Obama's 1995 memoir, "Dreams from My Father," which instead devotes that chapter to his impressions of race and class struggles in New York.

An article in a Columbia University publication, Columbia College Today, reported that Mr. Obama has portrayed Columbia as a period of buckling down following a troubled adolescence. He did not socialize much, he has said, instead spending a lot of time in the library, "like a monk." He has also stated that he was involved to some extent with the Black Students Organization.

Federal law limits the information that Columbia can release about Mr. Obama's time there. A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors, Mr. Connolly said, though specific information on his grades is sealed. A program from the 1983 graduation ceremony lists him as a graduate
*****************************************************************
He did not receive HONORS.

Anyone who is even slightly familiar with Harvard Law School and the grades and LSAT score needed to enter KNOWS that NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE would be admitted to Harvard Law School if they had not at least acheived honors in their undergraduate school UNLESS THEY RECIEVED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

I don't know why Obama is so sensitive about this. Many other African-Americans have received Affirmative Action including Clarence Thomas.

For the sake of his boast about "Transparency", he should tell us about the circumstances under which he was admitted to Harvard Law School.

Perhaps you have an answer, Mr. Parados. If so, let's hear it!

That's nice Possum.

Let's debate.
You claim Obama didn't graduate with honors from Columbia and provide that as evidence of his grades. There are 2 problems with that statement Possum.

1. It seems Columbia states anyone that attends for only 2 years can not graduate with honors.
http://www.wikicu.com/Barack_Obama




2. Since you don't have a transcript and the basis for your grades argument is based on a false assumption on your part, you have no basis for arguing what his grades were.




First rule of debate. If you claim something is a fact you must have a source for it. Please provide your source that lists Obama's grades and LSAT scores. His failing to graduate with honors had nothing to do with his grades according to Columbia. He could have had a 5.0 and still not graduated with honors based on the 4 year requirement.

Please provide a source for this. This is supposedly a debate after all. You have done nothing but provide unsourced statements that have little basis in reality when sources are looked at.

Harvard does NOT require HONORS to be accepted. Professors of Obama's have claimed he was one of the top 2 in his class. Grade average is NOT the same thing as HONORS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_School

Because you don't have facts does NOT mean you have a case. It only means you don't have facts. You made claims that Obama had bad grades and a low LSAT score. It is up to you to support your statements. Until you can, you lose the debate on lack of facts.

Hold off on your reply for a bit, Genoves. I have to get a 1 or 2 GB update for my hard drive, or would I need that for the RAM.

Let's begin then Parados.

Note:

To be accepted as a 1L into HLS you need an LSAT in the 170-176+ range. Basically, you need to score in the 99.999 percentile on the LSAT. Also, you need an undergraduate gpa of at least 3.6, generally. The lower your LSAT in the range specified above, the higher your GPA needs to be. So if you score a perfect 180 on the LSAT, you would still need at least a 3.5-3.6 to gain admittance. HLS takes roughly 500 students each year. The number cited in the above post is the entire student population, not the 1L admitting class (law school is three years). You should attend a reputable undergraduate university and if you really want to set yourself apart you should be taking honors curriculum. You need to write a personal statement to accompany your application (usually 2-3 pages in length), and also need 2-4 letters of recommendation (2 of which are from academic references, i.e. professors).

YOU NEED AN UNDERGRADUATE GPA OF A T L E A S T 3.6 GENERALLY.

Now, Obama did not give his GPA from Occidental and he did not give his GPA from Columbia. I am looking for the requirements for Harvard Law School and I am quite sure that the GPA for any individual applying is the GPA for all four years of Undergraduate School.

There is no data which shows that Obama earned higher than a 3.6 GPA combined from Occidental and Columbia.

He was NOT a top student at Columbia. Not at all.

I don't know how much you know about the difficulty of getting into Harvard Law School, MR. Parados but according to US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT ONLY 16% OF APPLICANTS ARE GRANTED ENTRANCE.

That means one out of six. I am currently looking for an old Harvard book which lists the GPA's of the applicants in 1993.

I am sure that I will find that most of them scored over 170 on the LSAT and that the average GPA from Undergraduate school was no lower than 3.6.

The next step is to determine what Obama's GPA was when combining the Occidental GPA and the Columbia GPA.

I find it extremely strange that when writing his autobiographies, Obama gives NO clue as to his scores at either University.

He yammers about every thing else, but never tells us about his scores and his successful entry into Harvard based on ?

Doing research now!

No argument there. Those are the requirements.

You have provided ZERO evidence of Obama not meeting those requirements.

True.. but you then argue that you know without knowing..



Yes, there is NO DATA at all which you already admitted. Since there is NO DATA then there is no reason for you to claim he did NOT get higher than 3.6 for a GPA. You have NO DATA. I could claim Obama got a 5.0 and would have as evidence as your argument he got less than 3.6. Simply claiming something doesn't make it so. Until you provide a transcript, your argument is built on nothing but air.


Please provide your evidence to support this. You already stated you have NO DATA on his GPA. How can you make such a statement without data.

What I find extremely strange is your claim of Obama's GPA without any data at all.

You have 2 choices. Provide the data or rescind the statement. Your entire argument is build on thin air. You have admitted as much.

http://www.gs.columbia.edu/bulletin_courses/Bulletin98/acadhonors.html
Here is the Columbia requirements for graduating with honors in gs.


Without a transcript showing that Obama met the credit requirements, the lack of honors says nothing about his grade point average.