Hillary Clinton for US Supreme Court --

She won't win the nomination.

She'd harm the ticket as VP.

Where to we need someone -- a lawyer like Hillary -- who will fight (dirty, if necessary) to the last breath? The Supreme Court!

Hillary Clinton for US Supreme Court!

teaching assistant doing Constitutional Law classes, after all.

He was as good as a professor, according to his students and his fellow teachers, to include professors, but in actual fact, his title was "senior lecturer."

I cite, because it's not nice to disagree without providing proof: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/701490,CST-NWS-obamaprof18.article


Some Obama critics say because he had the title of "senior lecturer" he should not call himself "professor." U. of C. professors said Obama -- who practiced civil rights law for a time and stopped teaching in 2003 -- could have joined their ranks whenever he wanted.

according to the University of Chicago. And there's nothing unusual about law professors who are only part-time teachers. Some of mine were full time judges and taught 1 class a semester, if that.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/28/university-of-chicago-ob_n_93896.html

Professors are full time and tenure track. He was neither.

He had a vague sort of 'equivalency' but he did NOT have the title. And that WAS the point I made.

From YOUR cite:

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.

If he was a PROFESSOR, they wouldn't have called him a SENIOR LECTURER. They would have called him a PROFESSOR. He was regarded as one, but he WASN'T one.

Not all professors are full time and tenure track.

At U Chicago, Senior Lecturers are distinct from Lecturers. The former are considered professors, the latter are not.

He wasn't a professor, they called him a SENIOR LECTURER.

Now, are there professors at that law school? Why YES, there ARE.

And he WASN'T ONE.

"Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track."

Maybe you should call U Chicago law school and let them know they're wrong and don't know how to classify their faculty.

It's like having the privilege and NOT being given the prize of the TITLE.

It is NOT the same. YOU are wrong.

If he were a PROFESSOR, they would have CALLED him PROFESSOR.

But they didn't. They call other people there PROFESSOR, but NOT Obama.

is a term of art. In some cases it is applied to adjunct professors, visiting professors and on and on. What the term signifies and whom it includes under the definition differs from school to school. (At UC it apparently signifies a Professor who is not full time and not tenure track.) Because of that, UC's interpretation/explanation--not someone named MADem's on a messageboard--is dispositive. And they have clarified that he was a professor.

They haven't said he WAS a professor. They said he was as good as one, and COULD have BEEN one if he wanted.

That's not saying he WAS one.

Do you consider an adjunct professor a professor?

I do. And according to your logic you do too, since the title contains the word "professor." What you don't realize is that at UChicago an adjunct professor = lecturer. A senior lecturer is > adjunct professor. Their terminology is simply different from what you're used to. That's why their explanation of the rather esoteric terminology they use at the school, and not yours, is dispositive.

is a term of art. In some cases it is applied to adjunct professors, visiting professors and on and on. What the term signifies and whom it includes under the definition differs from school to school. (At UC it apparently signifies a Professor who is not full time and not tenure track.) Because of that, UC's interpretation/explanation--not someone named MADem's on a messageboard--is dispositive. And they have clarified that he was a professor.

The technical term is adjunct Professor:



--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor#Adjunct_professor

Adjunct professor

An adjunct is a professor who does not hold a permanent position at that particular academic institution. This may be someone with a job outside the academic institution teaching courses in a specialized field, or it may refer to persons hired to teach courses on a contractual basis (frequently renewable contracts). It is generally a part-time position with a teaching load below the minimum required to earn benefits (health care, life insurance, etc.), although the number of courses taught can vary from a single course to a full-time load (or even an overload).

An adjunct is generally not required to participate in the administrative responsibilities at the institution expected of other full-time professors, nor do they generally have research responsibilities. The pay for these positions is usually nominal, even though adjuncts typically hold a Ph.D., requiring most adjuncts to hold concurrent positions at several institutions or in industry. Due to the considerably lower salaries of adjunct professors, many universities in North America have reduced hiring of tenure-track faculty in favor of recruiting adjuncts on a contractual basis. Contingent faculty now make up more than half of all faculty positions in the United States.<17>

Adjuncts provide flexibility to the faculty, acting as additional teaching resources to be called up as necessary. However, their teaching load is variable: classes can be transferred from adjuncts to full-time professors, classes with low enrollment can be summarily canceled and the teaching schedule from one semester to the next can be unpredictable. Furthermore, if the university makes a good faith offer to an adjunct professor of teaching during the following semester depending on enrollment, the adjunct generally cannot file for unemployment during the break. In some cases, an adjunct may hold one of the standard ranks in another department, and be recognized with adjunct rank for making significant contributions to the department in question. Thus, e.g., one could be an "Associate Professor of Physics and Adjunct Professor of Chemistry."
---

Clearly you were trying to tear down his qualifications by giving him a title that many 4th year undergrads and early grad students hold.. I have in my life been both a teaching assistant (a dozen years ago) and an adjunct instructor (3 years ago) I know the difference in where the bar is set..

Clearly, I wasn't "trying to tear down his qualifications."

If I was, I'd not have corrected my initial assertion.

He was a SENIOR LECTURER. He was NOT a PROFESSOR. If he WAS a professor, they would have given him that title.

And on EDIT--not to be a nitpicker, but I did NOT misspell the word ASSISTANT, as you suggest in your post.

teaching assistant is like calling a qualified teacher a babysitter..

DIFFERENT.

And did you bother to fucking READ my post? I acknowledge and correct my initial assertion--do you understand what that MEANS?

As for those titles, they mean different things, and they convey a different status. Otherwise, they wouldn't call a professor a senior lecturer.

Unless they do that to be "mean" to poor Barack, and treat him differently from the rest of the professors who get to have PROFESSOR next to their name.

If he were a PROFESSOR at that school, that's what his TITLE would have been.

I have been with my current employer 1.5 years and have had *3* job titles in that time my previous company put me through 5 titles in four years I don't imagine universities are much more stable. I still do the same things today I was doing on day one. Often times such things are semantical.. Probably his benefits or the term he was serving was what differed but not the responsibilities.

In any even I apologize for snapping at you the tone of your post was *very* dismissive even if thats not what you meant..

and universities, you're very naive about the reality of academia. The TITLE is VERY important. It's as important as the PERKS that go with it.

He did NOT HAVE THE TITLE OF PROFESSOR. If he did, he would have been listed as PROFESSOR OBAMA. NOT "Senior Lecturer Obama."

Your three titles here, and five titles there, are all well and good, but they mean nothing in the context of this discussion. Your previous company wasn't the University of Chicago Law School, so your anecdotal tales about how things are done in the business world have absolutely NO CURRENCY and no value to this discussion whatsoever.

There ARE "professors" at the U of C Law School. Obama's TITLE was "Senior Lecturer." Ergo, he was NOT a PROFESSOR.

Just because the cement mixer and the hod carrier occasionally lay a few bricks, that doesn't entitle them to the title of BRICKLAYER.


You get the title when the university GIVES it to you.

If he'd stayed, and gone full time, he would have gotten the title. But he didn't stay, and he did NOT have that PROFESSOR title. He was a Senior Lecturer.

I only have earned a lowly MASTER's degree.

We're not talking DIPLOMAT (bow and curtsy) :eyes:


Obama was The President of The Harvard Law Review. When he teaches, it's NOT "an assistant" but a First Class, A Number One, PROFESSOR. ;)

His title is technically "adjunct professor". We all refer to him as "professor".

I never cast aspersions on his qualifications. I know he's qualified. Not every graduate of Harvard Law is as lousy as Alberto Gonzales.

But we can agree about Alberto Gonzales.

breathless smackdown eagerness, you would SEE that I CORRECTED MY ASSERTION.

SEVERAL TIMES. As I do AGAIN, because POST DON'T READ is the rule here, apparently.

:eyes:

But I assumed that you knew that already and were condescendingly referring to him as a "teaching assistant" to get responses.

I apologize if that was not the case.

Do you really want to give her a lifetime podium to grandstand from after this election?

thats the last thing we need in the SC.

Naaaah ... after all, if we don't need a WalMart lawyer, neither do we need an angry, loose cannon corporate lawyer for Sidley & Austin either.

Bake

I am not sure which party she is for anymore, but she is definitely partisan.

I don't think anyone who has been in politics should be a judge. I'm old fashioned like that.

:popcorn:


Watchout for Hillary's supporters


:hide:

Just leave. Go.

No thanks.

Supreme Court appointments need to be no older than 55.

Scares me as much as having her as POTUS. I see her are a neocon in Dem clothing. Ummmmm...make that a pantsuit.

WHy would Obama waste valuable politcal capital on susch a stupid. doomed excursion into absurdity.

Opens up all of whitewater again..... a whole nes cycle of vettinh when the GOP is back on its heels. Stupid Idea.... <ajority leader is another thing. Mayor of New Yorl or Governor would be fine. But SCOTUS is a battle that would polarize the nation.... yet again.

She couldn't fuck up too badly at that, could she?

Well, they do work with all of that hot grease...

And she is less of a lawyer than Harriet Miers.

Edwards is a real lawyer. Hillary has never been a real lawyer. When she was a lawyer, she was a corporate toadie.

That would be a heck of a position to offer her if there's any wheeling-and-dealing to be done in the near future. Wouldn't be public face-saving for her because they'd probably keep it secret - "when I get in, the first opening that comes up over there is yours." But it'd be pretty shrewd on his part, and it would be extremely respectable as a next step for her (and I've also heard Senate Majority Leader and New York governor bandied about as lovely parting gifts).

And it would indeed drive the wrong wing frigging NUTS!

Anything that does that - can't be all bad.

Just not a great thing to have on your record when being considered for the highest judicial seat in the land.

2) I believe she lacks the moral character and clarity required. She has LIED repeatedly in this campaign. Her husband lied while under oath while in office. People have expressed outrage and disgust at her and her campaign this season. To me this lack of moral character and basic honesty automatically disqualifies her for consideration.

ANYTHING SHE WANTS!!

How about she do the work the state of New York hired her for?

You people that think ONLY HILLARY MATTERS, when there are tens of thousands of JUDGES in America, with the same qualifications as Hillary, and MORE EXPERIENCE.

You amaze me, you think this is some sort of casting call from Hollywood.

Get away from the Television, it has rotted your brains!

I really would like the Supreme Court to understand economic issues prior to working through the legal ramifications. This implies, um, that they might have to listen to economists on occasion.

This sort of rules Hillary out, right?

eom

Tell her it's the biggest historic first in the human era and she won't rest until she sitting in her office on the Sea of Tranquillity.

She would fit if she runs the NRA like her recent campaigning. She has the gun totin, pickup truck, beer guzzlin thing down. Go for it, Babe!

I doubt he will win the general election. So Obama won't be able to appoint her. And somehow I doubt that McCain will want to.

Steve

Smear campaign from Obama :rofl:

And just what smears are you referring to exactly... name a few please I'm dying to hear.

Open Government Democrats to protect our constitution just as much as the WH does.

She has no experience as a judge, so she doesn't have the type of record that many expect. Given her response to the NY Daily News on torture, is she who you want?

This is just emotion - she's a candidate losing a nomination, why does she deserve an exit prize? Was one given to any of the others in 2008?, 2004?, 2000? 1992? Did she fight with more grace than anyone else? She came in as a privileged candidate. What was Gore given - he really won the Presidency. Kerry is a lawyer and was a prosecutor and has unquestioned integrity - but he was never a judge either - his positions on the Constitution are better though. I wouldn't think he should be picked for SC either.

Let her finish her term as the Junior Senator from NY. I have a feeling she will not be reelected for a third term.

with scalia.

she'd be the best choice for VP, despite what hardcore Obama fans think.

We need to keep the Court as apolitical as possible to keep these right wing crazies from continuing to drum up anti-judicial-branch nonsense.

We need to stick with judges for SCOTUS for now.

We want them on the court a looooooooog time.

Hillary is too old for a SCOTUS nomination.