Legalities

Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg

Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.

September 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

« Previous | Main | Next »

Obama's Mixed Reviews from Chicago

July 30, 2008 7:32 AM

Today's NYT has a fascinating article about Obama's 12 years teaching at the University of Chicago Law School, which happens to be my alma mater. It quotes a number of professors (liberal and conservative), as well as former students. They offer a very different--and ultimately unflattering--picture of him.

On the one hand, the students portray him as a popular teacher who had legions of "groupies," mostly liberals who "sought refuge" in his thought-provoking seminars on race and civil rights at the school known for its rigorous law and economics approach.

But it also offers a more unsettling portrayal as a lecturer who did not write a single piece of legal scholarship, was disengaged from other faculty, single-mindedly focused in his political ambition and unwilling to take a stand on any issue--even those that deeply engaged the school and the surrounding South Side community--in order to protect his budding political career.

The most surprising--and revealing--anecdote concerns a gang case that consumed the law school and the poor South Side community that surrounds it. A group of professors in the school--liberal and conservative, black and white--took the lead in defending Chicago's anti-gang loitering ordinance, which was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Obama refused to take a stand.

The law allowed police to order groups of people to move along if they were loitering on the sidewalks. It was enormously popular on the South Side, where community activists said gangs had taken over entire streets in some neighborhoods and were keeping law-abiding people hostage in their homes. The ACLU said it violated free speech and the right of association, and it sued the city of Chicago.

This case went to the Supreme Court, which narrowly struck it down in a decision by Justice Stevens. It was so divisive an issue it produced six different opinions, including the most powerful and passionate dissent Clarence Thomas has ever written. Thomas sided with the neighborhood residents, quoting at length from the elderly people on the South Side who testified in support of the law, and graphically detailing the terror (and tragedy) gangs produce:

"Today, the Court focuses extensively on the “rights” of gang members and their companions. It can safely do so–the people who will have to live with the consequences of today’s opinion do not live in our neighborhoods. Rather, the people who will suffer from our lofty pronouncements are people like Ms. Susan Mary Jackson; people who have seen their neighborhoods literally destroyed by gangs and violence and drugs. They are good, decent people who must struggle to overcome their desperate situation, against all odds, in order to raise their families, earn a living, and remain good citizens. As one resident described, “There is only about maybe one or two percent of the people in the city causing these problems maybe, but it’s keeping 98 percent of us in our houses and off the streets and afraid to shop.” Tr. 126. By focusing exclusively on the imagined “rights” of the two percent, the Court today has denied our most vulnerable citizens the very thing that Justice Stevens elevates above all else–the "freedom of movement." And that is a shame."

July 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (90)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Another morning - another not so flattering story about Obama .. if you can't see what this guy is truly about then you're just blind!! Either that OR you don't want to see it. "Senator, you're no JFK!"

Cracks me up - people are going to vote for him just because he "makes them feel good"! Laughable!

Posted by: CJ | Jul 30, 2008 7:50:05 AM

12 years of teaching law---i would think that he is far beyond mccain on the mental issue----take away his family influence and where would mccain be---perhaps sanitation engineer.we all know how mccain got where he is--and it certainly is not through education.

Posted by: rodney | Jul 30, 2008 7:55:28 AM

What do you mean it offers a different picture? Thats what Obama has been portraying for the last 17 months people just haven't been paying attention!!!. Of course he has deep political ambition how else can you explain him staring his run for president after about 1 year as us senate? Of course he takes no stand did you not wittness the flip flops on just about every issue that got him the nomination, or the present votes he did so he did not have to take a stand? The media right now are his groupies, hopeful in the fall the voters will have been paying attention.

Posted by: rachel | Jul 30, 2008 8:01:47 AM

What does it matter whether or not a college Professor takes a stand on a controversial issue? His job was to teach, and all that mattered was the view of his students. They praised him. He did his job. Case closed. The media's obsession with all things Obama is seriously hittign critical mass. I read the same NY Times article and found it quite flattering.

Posted by: Kevin | Jul 30, 2008 8:17:00 AM

This is not new information. Obama has had no opinions, no new ideas, and no specifics on what his change is all about. This is why he always voted present. No opinion no stand nobody mad. In the debates how many times did you hear him say I agree with Senator Clinton or there's not much difference in our programs. Once we see who the VP picks are maybe we should skip the canidates and vote for them. Our choices are less than good in this election.

Posted by: maryintampa | Jul 30, 2008 8:17:19 AM

There is that word again,elitist. Most people really have not done their homework on either candidate.

Posted by: William | Jul 30, 2008 8:20:25 AM

I would be interested to hear Senator Obama speak on this issue. I have a question for all those supporters out there. Has Senator Obama ever headed a committee while in Senate? Has he demonstrated any leadership at all? Right now I am just trying to figure out who I am going to vote for. I am leaning towards McCain, he has earned the vote, I think...but am keeping my options open. Obama is very charismatic, but I want more than that in a POTUS. Also, I am concerned that people are going to vote for him or not vote for him because of the color of his skin. I understand he is just as much white as black, but for some reason, the americans that are of african decent seem to think he is the fixer of all their problems. I want a POTUS that will help all americans, not just a certain few.

Posted by: curious | Jul 30, 2008 8:22:46 AM

What you all want is a perfect person for president. There are no perfect people. Everyone has flaws and makes mistakes. Got knows John McCain has made his share, the media just doesn't bring them up or badger on them. He has basically had a free ride. I don't care what a person did in law school, the military, or in their peronal life. I want to know what they will do as president to get us back on line.

Posted by: thoughtful | Jul 30, 2008 8:22:59 AM

CLEANING UP THE GANGS IN OUR CITIES WILL HAVE TO START WITH A LITTLE HIGHER FAMILY ORIENTED PARENTS----in most part these thugs are the product of single parent familys --which has to change --as it truly takes two parents to raise children properly----however our gavernment rewards sing;e parents and has supported a new industry --as children go into foster care usually with relatives and foster care is paid to the tune of approx 1000 per month for each child----no need to work just have more children and share the money-----i dont have the answer as the problem is monumental---i would think that education would be a good start----and somewhere the need to have a complete family is of paramountimportance.

Posted by: rodney | Jul 30, 2008 8:25:51 AM

Which is it people? Do you hate Obama because he his intelligent man, and university professor? Or do you hate him for being popular with students? Then perhaps you would like to see a story of bottom of his class McCain, where the reporters could talk to his instructors about their inability to teach him anything.

Note that, despite all of the emoting on the part of "Justice" Thomas, who chooses to put quote marks around the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of all Americans, Obama didn't side with the gangs.

If Obama wins, America can withdraw from the Iraqi war exactly as the Australians, Canadians, Britons have, so that we can face the problems which involve the NATIONAL INTEREST, such as our preparedness to compete with the soon to be largest economy in the world.

Are we ready to compete with China, people? We need to devote the resources we have in the infrastructure and education of our nation.

PS. The people who attacked us on 9/11 were not in Iraq. And note to John McCain, Afghanistan does not have a border with that country.

Posted by: John's conscience | Jul 30, 2008 8:27:57 AM

CJ: I'm not easily fooled and not one who gets caught up in charisma and hype. I'm an educated, thinking adult. I will vote for Obama not because he makes me feel good. I will vote for him because he stands for things I believe in and McCain stands for everything I don't. Politics is politics. We need to look deeper into the candidate's message and the issues that affect our lives and discard the really silly negatives that people get bombarded with from the press and opposing campaigns. For me, there's no choice other than to vote for Obama.

Posted by: counting crows | Jul 30, 2008 8:33:34 AM

Another election year where we have to try to choose between the lesser of 2 evils.

Posted by: rigatoni28 | Jul 30, 2008 8:37:49 AM

Hillary Clinton on Obama's ethics reform bill, since passed into law, January 2007:

"The American public deserves to be certain that their elected officials are not being swayed by lavish gifts offered as quid pro quo for promoting special agendas," she said at the time. "To that end, gifts from registered lobbyists have no place in our legislative process. For that reason, I support the sweeping ban on lobbyist-paid gifts in the Senate bill. This ban includes not just meals but also gifts of travel and lodging, areas that have been the subject of notorious abuse."

A couple more laws sponsored by Barack Obama:

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (if you don't understand what this was about, you don't care about justice for working women)

James Webb G.I. Bill (college tuition for returning Vets from Iraq -- which McCain opposed).

Posted by: John's conscience | Jul 30, 2008 8:38:46 AM

Another day has started and Obama haters are at it again.

You can say all you want but the article and students who knew Obama all loved him because he was very intelligent. Nobody talks about how McCain finished 6 from the bottom of his military class of 980 students. Wasnt McCain supposed to hit a target and flee the enemy zone but was dropped in Vietnam? He is simply inept.

ABC and their negative coverage on Obama is just disgusting. Am still waitin for the story on McCain endorsing the Obama 16 month plan.

Judgment over experience. Obama 08

Posted by: Kenny | Jul 30, 2008 8:41:33 AM

``Another election year where we have to try to choose between the lesser of 2 evils.``
=======================================

One is bringing good judgment while the other is offering the same cold war mentality as Bush.

I`d rather chose the one with superior judgmen.Obama

Posted by: Alvin | Jul 30, 2008 8:46:00 AM

kenny
these people for the most part are older people living in the 50s with their attitudes and in another 10 years most will no longer be with us actually 50s and 60s-----i see them every day and have to deal with them.some of the crap that comes out of them is astounding

Posted by: rodney | Jul 30, 2008 8:48:13 AM

Alvin which lesser evil are you refering to?

The one who has been part of the last 27 years of borrow and spend republican 9.6 trillion dollars in National Debt.

Or the one who is new to Washington and wants to change the status quo???

Posted by: Saddlesablazing | Jul 30, 2008 8:51:07 AM

Obama's 16 month plan also includes leaving peacekeeper troups on the ground in Iraq a number they will not respond to but could number in the tens of thousands, moving the troops to Afghanistan, entering Pakistan if necessary and possible military action against Iran. Wow! He said he wants change, I didn't know this is what he meant.

Posted by: maryintampa | Jul 30, 2008 8:52:01 AM

The fact he did not want to get tangeled up in a case involving the ACLU shows he has better judgment than most. That usualy entails being tied up for a great many years at great ewxpense as the ACLU has deep pockets and doesn't mind the expense. So I'd say he showed very sound judgement.

Posted by: M H | Jul 30, 2008 8:54:07 AM

maryintampa
bush got us into this mess and bomb bomb iran mccain is no different---so i guess obama is all the hope we have left.however he is quite intelligent.

Posted by: rodney | Jul 30, 2008 8:55:15 AM

Post a comment