Lawyer Barack Obama In Court In 1994

twinx · **Posted:** Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:39 pm

It's a very poor audio, but this is pretty cool. The young lawyer must have had an ACE teleprompter in court of something.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski ... rt-in-1994

Quote:

In this little heard clip from 1994, accessed online via the Web Archive, Barack Obama, as a civil rights lawyer for Miner Barnhill, delivered oral arguments before Seventh Circuit court Judge Richard Posner. Obama was defending a whistleblower who had allegedly been blacklisted by his bosses after he had reported them for fraud.

The hearing was to decide whether Obama's client was entitled to punitive damages, which Obama won.

I think I'm right in saying he doesn't get shrouded.

Sequoia32 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:23 pm

Wow!

Thanks for that.

No more bullshit that President Obama never argued a case in court. :mrgreen:

verbalobe · **Posted:** Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:01 pm

That is so cool.

He cites like 10 cases, at least one of them summarized in some depth. He seems well prepared.

He seems focused on where he wants to get to with his argument; he engages with the panel respectfully and as an officer of the court, but assertively. "I don't believe that's true...."

What on earth is 'Federal common law'? :-k

Should I ask Mario?

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:04 am

It's been on the Home Pages for 6 months, BTW.

twinx · **Posted:** Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:31 am

Sorry, I thought I'd clicked every single link on those pages, Whatever4! I link to them often enough. :oops:

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9710

verbalobe wrote:

What on earth is 'Federal common law'? :-k

Should I ask Mario?

Like other common law, it is court-made law. It merely concerns a matter of federal interest, in which the federal courts have the power to make common law. Unlike state courts, federal courts do not have a general power to create common law over any matter where they have jurisdiction to decide a case. These areas would include federal criminal law, admiralty, cases involving the military, and other special federal areas.

Under the Erie doctrine, there is "no general federal common law," meaning that when deciding a cause of action based in state law, the federal court must follow the substantive law of the appropriate state's law. This distinction confuses even some attorneys and I am not at all certain even all courts understand it perfectly. It's actually a rather complicated issue.

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:20 pm

twinx wrote:

Sorry, I thought I'd clicked every single link on those pages, Whatever4! I link to them often enough. :oops:

No -- I'M sorry. I was too quick. I was just being competitive. (I thought Loren had posted that for some reason. :mrgreen:

) I should have used a smilie.

That page is always under construction, so stuff gets moved and added to regularly. The other pages are more stable. I'm going to start using Date Added tags.

I'm getting pretty bored with birthers, though. 4 years is a long time.

Mr. Gneiss · **Joined:** Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:37 am **Posts:** 575

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

verbalobe wrote:

What on earth is 'Federal common law'? :-k

Should I ask Mario?

Like other common law, it is court-made law. It merely concerns a matter of federal interest, in which the federal courts have the power to make common law. Unlike state courts, federal courts do not have a general power to create common law over any matter where they have jurisdiction to decide a case. These areas would include federal criminal law, admiralty, cases involving the military, and other special federal areas.

Under the Erie doctrine, there is "no general federal common law," meaning that when deciding a cause of action based in state law, the federal court must follow the substantive law of the appropriate state's law. This distinction confuses even some attorneys and I am not at all certain even all courts understand it perfectly. It's actually a rather complicated issue.

The Fogbow Rules!! Chock full of legal insights!

Offtopic :

Thanks LOH for that distinction of "federal common law". In September 2010, I had a long argument with another surveyor regarding the U.S. Supreme Court case, Clement v. Packer, 125 U.S. 309 (1888).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/125/309

He argued that because it was a U.S. Supreme Court case, it was "the law of the land". I countered that it was only binding in Pennslyvania. The Federal courts were brought in because of diversity. Packer was a New York resident and Clement was from Sunbury, PA. When the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case, they were acting as surrogates (sorry, probably not the proper legal term, but IANAL) of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. SCOTUS was bound by Pennsylvania precedent and statutory law.

I will look into the Erie doctrine. Any direction on where to start is appreciated.

Edit: For clarity

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Lawyer Barack Obama In Court In 1994

Who is online