Crazy Joe Biden would appoint Unlicensed Lawyer on Supreme Court

Creepy Joe Biden still believes Obama has wind in his sails. So Biden panders for the much needed black vote.

The creepy VP and 2020 Democratic Presidential buffoon declared his undying love for Baby Black Jesus publicly.

On a recent appearance on “The Late Show” with hack Stephen Colbert, Biden announced that he would appoint Obama to the Supreme Court.

“Would you appoint him [Obama] to the Supreme Court?” Colbert questioned.

“Hell yes!” Biden responded. He then added, “I don’t think he’d do it but he’s fully qualified.”

Who next? Jay-Z and Beyonce? They are equally qualified according to Leftist standards.

Let’s check out Obama’s stupendous credentials from the LA Times:

Obama arrived in Chicago in 1993 with a degree from Harvard Law School and was hired as a junior lawyer at the firm then known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard. He helped represent clients in civil and voting rights matters and wrongful firings, argued a case before a federal appellate court, and took the lead in writing a suit to expand voter registration.

But the firm also handled routine legal matters and real estate. Obama spent about 70% of his time on voting rights, civil rights and employment, generally as a junior associate. The rest of his time was spent on matters related to real estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits.

In one instance, Obama defended a nonprofit corporation that owns low-income housing projects against a lawsuit in which a man alleged that he slipped and fell because of poor maintenance. Obama got the suit dismissed.

Let’s put this “low-income housing project” case in perspective.

In April 2007, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Obama did some legal work between 1995 and 1998 on a series of troubled low-income housing deals involving Rezmar Corp., owned by Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

Rezko worked as a Chicago real estate developer and fast food magnate who is now in prison. However, until his incarceration, Rezko was a longtime friend of Obama. Over the years, Rezko did a good amount of fundraising for him. And, he helped Obama secure a fat deal on a house.

This house deal reeks of payola. But the media conveniently brushed over the obvious graft. Below is just a small piece of the sordid tale:

There is plenty to scrutinize in Obama’s dealings with Rezko, a developer and political operative who has come to symbolize Illinois’ shadowy and infamous pay-to-play politics. But the news releases from the GOP distort facts to make Obama’s dealings with Rezko appear more nefarious than they really were.

For example, one asks, “Did Obama know that Tony Rezko was saving him $300,000 on the purchase of his home?”

By asking if Obama knew about it, the question presumes that Rezko did, in fact, save Obama $300,000 on the purchase of his home. He didn’t.

Now Obama did pay $300,000 less than the asking price for a century-old mansion he and his wife, Michelle, purchased from a Chicago doctor in 2005 for $1.65-million.

And on the same day the Obamas closed on their house, Rezko’s wife, Rita Rezko, bought a vacant lot next door from the same seller, at the full asking price of $625,000. Obama said it was his understanding that there was another offer for the vacant lot at or near the asking price, thereby setting the market.

You can look more into this crooked deal. But let’s get back to Obama’s stellar career as an attorney:

In another case, Obama appeared on behalf of a nonprofit corporation that provided healthcare for poor people. A woman who claimed income of less than $8,000 a year had sued Obama’s client to obtain a $336 payment for baby-sitting services; Obama’s client paid up, and the case was settled.

In 1994, Obama appeared in Cook County court on behalf of Woodlawn Preservation & Investment Corp., defending it against a suit by the city, which alleged that the company failed to provide heat for low-income tenants on the South Side during the winter.

Those were not the cases Obama highlighted in the self-portrait drawn in his first memoir, “Dreams From My Father.”

“In my legal practice,” he wrote, “I work mostly with churches and community groups, men and women who quietly build grocery stores and health clinics in the inner city, and housing for the poor.”

That’s it. Obama’s amazing legal record.

Based on that trivial legal nonsense, Biden would appoint that legal baboon to the Supreme Court? I know people who went to court pro se who make a better attorney than Barack Obama.

And as for Michelle Obama, her legal record is far worse. From in describing Michelle Obama’s work in law:

One of the former First Lady’s challenges was the isolating nature of the work. “I read memos. And I wrote memos. I edited other people’s memos.” But she said she had almost no contact with clients. And not much with other lawyers either.

Don’t look for anything more, because that’s it. Obama was a glorified clerk. Had it not been for Affirmative Action, the Obamas’ Ivy League pedigrees would evaporate faster than mist in Death Valley.

Both Barack nor Michelle Obama sucked at their careers. And America can thank the lowering of standards for blacks for both of these non-practicing attorneys. Neither of these “attorneys” licenses (surrendered or otherwise) is worth the paper its printed on.

Even the LA Times stressed over how to make a legal career out of absolutely NOTHING for Barack Obama!

Talk about embarrassing legal resumes, it’s No wonder the Obamas surrendered their law licenses.

A search on the website of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois shows that Barack Obama is listed as “voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law,” and Michelle Obama is listed as “voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law.”

The Obamas haven’t said exactly what prompted them to change the status of their licenses. I would guess their newfound fame and fortune over having used Affirmative Action to acquire the American Dream. Nevertheless, apparently it is fairly common for lawyers who didn’t intend to continue practicing law to go on inactive status.

One website quoted,

It was actually one of the reasons, he said, that the rule was changed so that lawyers wanting to switch to inactive status no longer had to petition the Illinois Supreme Court to do so. In 2011, more than 12 percent of the state’s 87,943 registered attorneys were on inactive status (see Chart 2), according to the ARDC’s annual report for that year.

In addition, prior to June 5, 2012, the Obamas would have been required to pay an annual fee of $289 (now $342), and take classes to satisfy the state’s Minimum Continuing Legal Education requirement, in order to keep their licenses active. Lawyers on retirement status, however, don’t have to pay an annual fee or take classes. And lawyers on inactive status also don’t have to take classes. But they do have to pay an annual fee of $105.

It certainly wasn’t the money that kept the Obamas from reupping their licenses. But if they do return to practicing law, I suggest you find another attorney.



Back to top button