Remembering TCPaul, 2016-2019

Anyone know Obama or Michelle’s LSAT?

Thanks tttsolo03/18/19
As Reagan used to say, "I was a C student. Imagine what I c quillan03/18/19
No evidence suggests this. Neither President disclosed patenttrollnj04/18/19
Obama was born 20 years later... I think during this time th superttthero04/18/19
TITCR - "elite" college admissions have changed drastically williamdrayton04/18/19
You mistake what I say. I'm not comparing Trump to Obama, a patenttrollnj04/21/19
Duplicate patenttrollnj04/21/19
"Certainly the leftist media likes to pretend Obama was bril therewillbeblood04/18/19
Is that the same Twitter account that got him elected Presid patenttrollnj04/21/19
"What difference, at this point, does it make?" ;-) wutwutwut03/18/19
AA can get into Harvard with 3.5 and 163 LSATs. irishlaw03/18/19
Standards have dropped But yes, AA always had a lower thre dingbat03/18/19
Been checking NA my whole life. One of these days it will pa rastaman04/20/19
He always said he was a bad student. I doubt he had the scor fettywap03/18/19
What grades did your Stable Genius get? Wasn't he Special Ed corneroffice03/18/19
Congratulations, you have mastered mouthing the entirely gra cacrimdefense03/18/19
You think someone asks about the ex-POTUS's scores is a pure superttthero03/18/19
Indeed! A feather in my cap for posterity. Obama is no longe corneroffice03/18/19
Hey, you get points for commitment to cause. No one can accu cacrimdefense03/19/19
You are a real Jay Leno, who was never funny and overrated. corneroffice03/19/19
No, but tread lightly! I remember a bunch of people with ac 2tierreality03/18/19
He graduated HLS magna and as we all know, most law school e onehell03/18/19
In the 90s, didn't half of HLS graduates get magna latin ho wutwutwut03/18/19
You could be right, I don't know. I always thought that LS u onehell03/18/19
I got into a few T20s and on the admit's meet-n-greet days t wutwutwut03/19/19
Yeah lol, top 20 ain't good enough that people don't need to onehell03/19/19
"In the 90s, didn't half of HLS graduates get magna latin ho therewillbeblood04/18/19
Sorry, note I had a copypasta error in the part you quoted, wutwutwut04/18/19
Barack was Editor in Chief of the Law Review at Harvard. So drewprocess03/19/19
Yeah. High, middling, or low LSAT, his EIC role on the Harv kickflipninja03/19/19
Somebody once told me that he was the only EIC of the Harvar daleycenter03/20/19
Well if somebody said it, must be true. In any event, stude nycatt03/22/19
Nice snark. Turns out it is true...how odd is that? daleycenter03/26/19
I'm more interested in Clarence Thomas' LSAT score and under catwoman33303/19/19
Wouldn't he have made it into YLS long before sitting on the jd4hire03/20/19
Not interrupting oral arguments or asking questions during i wutwutwut03/20/19
As an aside, I just saw on the ABA's website that Thomas bro jd4hire03/20/19
He’s a poaster. esquirewalletsmatter03/21/19
I respectfully dissent. I find his lack of oral argumen catwoman33303/20/19
"I find his lack of oral argument Qs (or any hint of interes wutwutwut03/21/19
earnest question: how many SCOTUS decisions are made or brok williamdrayton03/21/19
Your response is way off point to my comment, but whatever.. catwoman33303/21/19
had you offered an opinion based on an understanding of the williamdrayton03/22/19
Conventional wisdom says that in nearly all cases, the court actionbronson03/22/19
Things have been briefed quite a bit (at least three times) nycatt03/22/19
I have no reason to doubt that Obama was at least average to actionbronson03/20/19
to be fair, compared to the other presidents he was a genuin whiteguyinchina03/22/19
"He was a lecturer at UChicago for a few years (not a "profe legalace03/24/19
half the partners in biglaw have never had their name attach dingbat03/24/19
You're saying that half of litigation partners in Biglaw fir actionbronson03/25/19
He's not dumb by any means, but I don't think Obama is quite diplolaw04/18/19
Bill is much smarter than Hillary. Didn't she fail the bar schopenhauerx9904/21/19
Hillary Clinton failed the DC bar once. Michelle Obama faile legalace04/22/19
Jdu... come for the career mediocrity, stay for the alt righ trollfeeder04/21/19
Agreed. The Obamas have been out of office for more than 2 catwoman33304/21/19

tttsolo (Mar 18, 2019 - 8:15 am)

Thanks

Reply
quillan (Mar 18, 2019 - 4:41 pm)

As Reagan used to say, "I was a C student. Imagine what I could have accomplished if I'd studied harder."

All evidence suggests Obama had much above average scores (by any standard) and Trump much below average (at least for his social class). Make of it what you will, but both were president and both are rich (though Trump much less so than he claims).

Reply
patenttrollnj (Apr 18, 2019 - 9:42 am)

No evidence suggests this.

Neither President disclosed their high school grades or their college grades. Certainly the leftist media likes to pretend Obama was brilliant and Trump was an idiot, but this is mere propaganda.

We do know that Obama did rather well by the time he got to law school (since he was editor of the law review). The presumption has always been that he did well at Columbia, but we don't actually know this. We know Obama was a pot smoker in both college and high school, and he did not start-off at Columbia. Michelle admits that he fooled around for a long time, but got his act together afterwards.

As for Trump, he went to military school. He started college at Fordham, but then transferred to Wharton. As with Obama, we can presume that Trump did well initially in order to be able to transfer to a better school. The difference being that Trump did not go-on to graduate school.

Also, both Trump & Obama came from a wealthy background. Certainly Trump more so, but Obama's grandparents were upper-middle class people and they're the ones who raised him.

Now we have this clown Michael Cohen (that shady lawyer) going around saying he threatened Trump's school if they disclosed his grades, but he is not credible.

In the end, both Obama and Trump are remarkable men.

Reply
superttthero (Apr 18, 2019 - 10:12 am)

Obama was born 20 years later... I think during this time there was a big shift in entry requirements for colleges, particularly higher end ones.

Legacy, name and what not got you a lot more mileage in Trump's time than in Obama's, which is more than today. You think an actress married to an ultra rich guy like Laughlin has to bribe anyone to get a kid with middling grades into a top school in 1963?

I completely agree that media spins Obama as smart (whether he is or not) and Trump as dumb (whether he is or not), but Obama's record of non-rich person doing Columbia -> HLS -> Editor of HLS Law Review says a hell of a lot more than Trump, as an already rich person doing Fordham -> Penn undergrad.

Reply
williamdrayton (Apr 18, 2019 - 12:26 pm)

TITCR - "elite" college admissions have changed drastically since Trump graduated high school in 1964. another person with a reputation for being less than a genius is GW Bush, who graduated High school the same year.

can a mediocrity with family money/legacy still get a leg up in the admissions process? of course, but it doesn't carry nearly the same weight it did 55 years ago.

remember the demographics of elite colleges at the time:
a small number of women (or none at all i.e. Yale and Princeton)
very few blacks, hispanics
almost no Asians
a cap quota on Jews

high school senior Barry Dunham faced a much different college admissions world than high school senior Donald Trump. by 1979 the push for meritrocracy and diversity was just getting into full gear

Reply
patenttrollnj (Apr 21, 2019 - 7:15 pm)

You mistake what I say. I'm not comparing Trump to Obama, as in which of the two is smarter.

I'm saying both are smart.

Reply
patenttrollnj (Apr 21, 2019 - 7:15 pm)

Duplicate

Reply
therewillbeblood (Apr 18, 2019 - 12:27 pm)

"Certainly the leftist media likes to pretend Obama was brilliant and Trump was an idiot, but this is mere propaganda. "

Don't be insane. We can tell Trump is an idiot from his twitter account, which has nothing to do with the media.

Reply
patenttrollnj (Apr 21, 2019 - 7:16 pm)

Is that the same Twitter account that got him elected President? That twitter account?

Because, well, we certainly know it wasn't the Russians that got him elected. Trump's just been cleared of that.

Reply
wutwutwut (Mar 18, 2019 - 10:34 am)

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"


;-)


Except encouraging splitters to apply, I guess. He was rumored to have been a relatively low GPA, relatively high LSAT splitter.

Reply
irishlaw (Mar 18, 2019 - 10:42 am)

AA can get into Harvard with 3.5 and 163 LSATs.

Reply
dingbat (Mar 18, 2019 - 11:14 am)

Standards have dropped
But yes, AA always had a lower threshold. NA is even lower

Reply
rastaman (Apr 20, 2019 - 12:42 am)

Been checking NA my whole life. One of these days it will pay off!

Reply
fettywap (Mar 18, 2019 - 10:58 am)

He always said he was a bad student. I doubt he had the scores to get into Harvard.

Reply
corneroffice (Mar 18, 2019 - 11:13 am)

What grades did your Stable Genius get? Wasn't he Special Ed?

Reply
cacrimdefense (Mar 18, 2019 - 11:54 am)

Congratulations, you have mastered mouthing the entirely gratuitous criticism of the president by utilizing a topic (law school admission scores) unrelated to anything in which he is or has been involved.

Years from now, you’ll be able to impress your grandchildren with tales of your “resistance” efforts and boasts of how limited the space was that Donald Trump occupied in your head.

Reply
superttthero (Mar 18, 2019 - 2:49 pm)

You think someone asks about the ex-POTUS's scores is a purely academic query?

Reply
corneroffice (Mar 18, 2019 - 3:03 pm)

Indeed! A feather in my cap for posterity. Obama is no longer president nor is George Bush. Don't hear either of them bragging how smart they are. Trump has an infant's brain. At least you can write a cogent sentence in support of the degenerate. Why is was he trying to cover his school records, this Fordham transfer? Not fooled by your buffon.

Reply
cacrimdefense (Mar 19, 2019 - 5:10 am)

Hey, you get points for commitment to cause. No one can accuse you of being half-hearted about your obsession.

Exactly what is the market value of the real estate Trump occupies rent-free in your head? Has your wife or gf begun to complain about your practice of calling out the president’s name when the two of you are being intimate?

Reply
corneroffice (Mar 19, 2019 - 6:39 pm)

You are a real Jay Leno, who was never funny and overrated.

I have a hunch your from Stockton.

Reply
2tierreality (Mar 18, 2019 - 11:45 am)

No, but tread lightly! I remember a bunch of people with access to student loan records looked up his info back in 2007/2008, and got busted BIG TIME.

Reply
onehell (Mar 18, 2019 - 1:45 pm)

He graduated HLS magna and as we all know, most law school exams are blind-graded. Even if he did have some kind of leg-up in the admissions process, which is unknown, there can be little question that he more than held his own compared to his classmates.

Reply
wutwutwut (Mar 18, 2019 - 2:00 pm)

In the 90s, didn't half of HLS graduates get magna latin honors?

Not saying that doesn't mean he did well.

For what it's worth, a guy did some data analysis and found that only 10 AA went from Columbia to HLS in that LSAT cycle and 2 of them had over 94th percentile LSATs. From that plus an estimate of his grades (which O himself said weren't stellar), the guy concluded it was reasonable O was one of the two high scorers (mentioned in my comment above about splitters).

His reasoning is the other 8, who all had LSAT percentiles less than 65th percentile, would have to have had high GPAs to get HLS.

Reply
onehell (Mar 18, 2019 - 4:22 pm)

You could be right, I don't know. I always thought that LS used to be harder, like how Scott Turow used to write about people ripping pages out of books and 1 out of 3 failing out and whatnot. But a quick Wikipedia search of HLS does seem to peg the early 90s as a time when they were getting increasingly focused on moving the cut-throat competition out of the classroom and shifting it to the admissions process, so he might've been right on the cusp of that cultural shift.

Reply
wutwutwut (Mar 19, 2019 - 12:25 am)

I got into a few T20s and on the admit's meet-n-greet days they all sang this story about how the cutthroat competition and hiding/destroying references was "all a thing of the past" and the students now were all holding hands singing kum-bah-yah etc.

I was sitting there thinking, if they have to bring it up in the initial plenary session, it's still a problem.

Reply
onehell (Mar 19, 2019 - 7:11 pm)

Yeah lol, top 20 ain't good enough that people don't need to compete. HYS can say that, sure, cuz the guy who is dead last in the class is still getting biglaw. And at terrible schools, almost everyone is pretty much equally screwed. But the top 20 is full of "trap schools" where the odds of a good outcome are somewhere between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4, and most everyone knows it.

The only reason people aren't still tearing pages out of books at the trap schools is that we have the internet now. If anything, the bimodal gap in salaries has increased (as have student loan balances) and so the game is even higher stakes than it was back in the day.

Reply
therewillbeblood (Apr 18, 2019 - 12:28 pm)

"In the 90s, didn't half of HLS graduates get magna latin honors?"

Outscoring half of Harvard Law students seems like a pretty impressive accomplishment.

Reply
wutwutwut (Apr 18, 2019 - 4:31 pm)

Sorry, note I had a copypasta error in the part you quoted, it should have said only "latin honors", not "magna latin honors".


Going to your point, though, I guess it's impressive to beat half of your class, but most people don't think "I graduated HLS with Honors" means "I barely scraped my way into the top half".

So another way of saying "I graduated HLS with Honors" is "I was an average student at HLS".


Or (not HLS, Harvard College) graduating "with honors" means "welp, I weren't in the bottom 10%!"

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/22/us/harvard-faculty-votes-to-put-the-excellence-back-in-the-a.html


In 2002 they voted to reduce the number graduating with honors down from around 90% in 2001 to "only" 60% of graduates, with effect as of the 2005 graduating class.

Reply
drewprocess (Mar 19, 2019 - 6:35 am)

Barack was Editor in Chief of the Law Review at Harvard. So a very accomplished student.

Reply
kickflipninja (Mar 19, 2019 - 7:22 am)

Yeah. High, middling, or low LSAT, his EIC role on the Harvard Law Review fully establishes strong law school bona fides.

Reply
daleycenter (Mar 20, 2019 - 11:00 am)

Somebody once told me that he was the only EIC of the Harvard Law Review that hadn’t authored a published article?

Reply
nycatt (Mar 22, 2019 - 3:56 pm)

Well if somebody said it, must be true. In any event, student law review articles should all be banned since law students are morons. It takes several years of torture before they become useful.

Reply
daleycenter (Mar 26, 2019 - 11:08 pm)

Nice snark.

Turns out it is true...how odd is that?

Reply
catwoman333 (Mar 19, 2019 - 9:08 pm)

I'm more interested in Clarence Thomas' LSAT score and undergrad. grades. How someone who sits on the Sup. Ct., not uttering a single word for decades, ever made it into Yale Law is beyond me...:).

Reply
jd4hire (Mar 20, 2019 - 12:26 pm)

Wouldn't he have made it into YLS long before sitting on the Sup. Ct. and not uttering a word for decades?

Also, what does the amount of questions one asks have anything to do with grades/ LSAT scores?

I can't cite to it, but I've read that the amount of questions asked now is exponentially more than historically. I'm not a fan of a totally cold appellate bench but it is equally frustrating, if not more so, to be peppered with quesitons non stop throughout argument without the ability to make your argument.

Reply
wutwutwut (Mar 20, 2019 - 4:32 pm)

Not interrupting oral arguments or asking questions during is not a good proxy for lack of intelligence.

My FedCourts prof used to call Justices Blackmun, Brennan, Burger "buzzless bees" because they also sat mute all or nearly all the time.

Do you think they're stupid, too?

Reply
jd4hire (Mar 20, 2019 - 4:55 pm)

As an aside, I just saw on the ABA's website that Thomas broke a three year silence and asked a question today.

His ears were probably burning.

Reply
esquirewalletsmatter (Mar 21, 2019 - 10:01 pm)

He’s a poaster.

Reply
catwoman333 (Mar 20, 2019 - 10:18 pm)

I respectfully dissent.

I find his lack of oral argument Qs (or any hint of interest or participation for DECADES) indicative of: indifference, boredom, laziness, contempt for the process, and/or possibly even low IQ--not exactly the kinds of characteristics one hopes for in a student (Ivy League or elsewhere) or any job applicant, let alone for a slot on the Sup. Court.

IMO, CT got into YLS and onto the Sup. Court solely due to AA/PC, not due to intellect or any history of hard work or great achievements in college, LS, or in the real world.

Reply
wutwutwut (Mar 21, 2019 - 2:41 pm)

"I find his lack of oral argument Qs (or any hint of interest or participation for DECADES) indicative of: indifference, boredom, laziness, contempt for the process, and/or possibly even low IQ"



And yet as mentioned there are also other highly respected justices who just sat mute. Do you assume their lack of questions was indicative of same? Was Justice Blackmun an idiot? How about Justice Brennan - surely he must have been an idiot.


As for "laziness" - that's another common complaint about him. "He just signs onto whatever Scalia or Alito writes". But if you go to Scotusblog and see who authors the most opinions per year, he's ahead of most.

Reply
williamdrayton (Mar 21, 2019 - 5:32 pm)

earnest question: how many SCOTUS decisions are made or broken on oral argument? it was my impression that 99% of the battle was in the briefs

since I'm long out of law school I no longer read opinions but I don't ever recall seeing the sentence, "as Mr. Olson eloquently stated during oral argument, stare decisis must be maintained"

my impression is that appellate courts in general primarily rely on briefing with oral argument used solely to amplify or clarify certain points.

either Catwoman is trolling or is conflating appellate courts with episodes of Law & Order where the judge asks a bunch of probing questions of the attorneys

Reply
catwoman333 (Mar 21, 2019 - 8:52 pm)

Your response is way off point to my comment, but whatever...

Just because someone states an opinion contrary to yours, that doesn't make her/him a "troll". I'll bet that kind of brilliant legal analysis always impresses judges/juries when you are sparring with opposing counsel in court.

Reply
williamdrayton (Mar 22, 2019 - 9:57 am)

had you offered an opinion based on an understanding of the structure and conduct of appellate courts, the thought of trolling would have never entered my mind.

instead, you relied on the popular but intellectually lazy meme of: silence at oral argument = stupidity. then you add the simple-minded attack: how did he get into YLS? it's gotten really tired over the last 27 years

and I'm not even a fan of Thomas and his "originalism". but one can disagree with a justice without insulting his intelligence.

Reply
actionbronson (Mar 22, 2019 - 1:18 am)

Conventional wisdom says that in nearly all cases, the court has already made up its mind by the time oral argument rolls around. Oral argument usually exists to allow the parties to sum up the important points of their issues in order to help the court finalize their opinion(s), and to give the parties one last shot at presenting new or relevant information which could sway the case. I mean, one of the federal appellate courts I'm admitted in only grants oral argument sparingly. Most of their cases are decided on the papers, and when they do grant oral argument, they usually limit discussion only to certain issues. And to your point, I've yet to read a written opinion where a court specifically points to something mentioned at oral argument as a deciding factor in the outcome of the case. Oral argument, while not without value, is mostly theater.

Obvs I've never appeared before SCOTUS, but I have plenty of appellate experience. The only oral argument I participated in during which the court asked more than a handful of questions of either side was in a federal circuit court. And I'm pretty sure that was because I was on the losing side of a contentious issue. I've observed plenty of arguments, and that generally holds true there as well. I'm not exactly a fan of Clarence Thomas, but when oral argument is such a small part of SCOTUS' work, the fact that he chooses to stay silent most of the time doesn't say much about his intelligence or work ethic. Is he truly brilliant? Probably not. But he's certainly more consequential than someone like, say, Breyer.

Reply
nycatt (Mar 22, 2019 - 3:58 pm)

Things have been briefed quite a bit (at least three times) by the time they get to supreme court - its all in the papers. Not a fan of Clarence, but not asking questions is not the reason.

Reply
actionbronson (Mar 20, 2019 - 3:35 pm)

I have no reason to doubt that Obama was at least average to above average at Harvard. I'm less impressed by what he did after law school but before entering national politics. As far as I know, he didn't play a significant role in any major litigation matters and only lasted a few years at Sidley Austin. His Wikipedia page says he was identified as one of three attorneys in a class action case. My name appears in West searches in excess of 100 times as an attorney (with 5 cases being reported, binding precedent) so if that's the best anyone could dig up on Obama, that isn't all that impressive. He was a lecturer at UChicago for a few years (not a "professor" as his supporters often used to say; I'm not aware of him producing any scholarship). Then he became a "community organizer" and state legislator. All this leads me to believe that he's a very talented politician, but not a great mind, legal or otherwise. I always chuckled at people who portrayed him as this Grand Master of Constitutional law who should be appointed to SCOTUS at some point.

Reply
whiteguyinchina (Mar 22, 2019 - 5:02 am)

to be fair, compared to the other presidents he was a genuine constitutional scholar

Reply
legalace (Mar 24, 2019 - 10:04 pm)

"He was a lecturer at UChicago for a few years (not a "professor" as his supporters often used to say..."

Actually, it was the University of Chicago that misdescribed Obama as a professor: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
"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."

Reply
dingbat (Mar 24, 2019 - 10:26 pm)

half the partners in biglaw have never had their name attached to a case and can't be found in Westlaw.

Reply
actionbronson (Mar 25, 2019 - 11:39 am)

You're saying that half of litigation partners in Biglaw firms, assuming they've been practicing at least 7 years or so, never once have their name associated with any case (i.e. meaning they never even entered an appearance) that appears in a research database? I find that hard to believe but I've never worked in Biglaw so I'll defer to you.

But in any event, I only brought that up because as I was writing that original post I was trying to see what Obama had done before entering national politics, and Wikipedia (yes, I know, not the deepest source) mentioned that he was one of the attorneys in a consumer protection class action, and point to a single case cite. He was at Sidley for a minute, then joined a smaller civil rights firm. He just doesn't seem to have done much as a lawyer. That's not necessarily a knock on him either. He found something that worked for him (obviously) and kept at it.

Reply
diplolaw (Apr 18, 2019 - 2:54 am)

He's not dumb by any means, but I don't think Obama is quite the sharp tool so many give him credit. Of all the presidents in my lifetime and that I have observed in action professionally or otherwise, Bill Clinton is by far the most intelligent. Scary smart, in fact. I bet his LSAT was perfect or damn near.

Reply
schopenhauerx99 (Apr 21, 2019 - 6:11 pm)

Bill is much smarter than Hillary. Didn't she fail the bar a couple of times?

Reply
legalace (Apr 22, 2019 - 10:33 pm)

Hillary Clinton failed the DC bar once. Michelle Obama failed the Illinois bar exam once.

Reply
trollfeeder (Apr 21, 2019 - 9:11 am)

Jdu... come for the career mediocrity, stay for the alt right mental illness.

Reply
catwoman333 (Apr 21, 2019 - 1:27 pm)

Agreed. The Obamas have been out of office for more than 2 years and Michelle Obama took the LSAT, what, more than 30 years ago? WHO CARES???

The fact that she benefitted from AA (or not) isn't even relevant to the lives of the posters here many of whom were probably not even born yet when she was a student. IMO, this blog is full of some very sad, bored, bitter people desperately in need of help and real lives...

Reply
Post a message in this thread