Obama 'Tragedy That Redistribution of Wealth Not Pursued' 2001

[Warriorbird]

Obama on the Supreme Court

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

[Mabus]

Already got it.

Since you won't answer the question, I will answer it for you.

Yes, Obama does believe in the Socialist notion of redistribution of wealth.

He has even stated so in the past:
Obama 2001 Chicago Radio Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck)
:hug2:

[Warriorbird]

Didn't notice... but figured a thread might be noteworthy. Think this'll have any traction? I'm curious as to the rest of what he was saying.

[Daniel]

Yea. Imagine that.

[ClydeR]

Didn't notice... but figured a thread might be noteworthy. Think this'll have any traction? I'm curious as to the rest of what he was saying.

Below is part of an article containing a link the full interview, which is 53 minutes long.


You can listen to the whole show HERE (http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/ram/od/od-010118.ram).

In that show -- WBEZ-FM's "Odyssey" -- Obama discussed the role of the courts in civil rights.

Today, aides say, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., will seize on some of those remarks, as hyped by Mr. Drudge.

Obama in that interview said, "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay."

"But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."

Obama said "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still stuffer from that."

A caller, "Karen," asked if it's "too late for that kind of reparative work economically?” And she asked if that work should be done through the courts or through legislation.

"Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor," Obama said. "I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way."

More... (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/mccain-to-attac.html)

[Warriorbird]

Not quite as direct as it was made out to be.

[TheEschaton]

Interesting, the GOP is taking a quote out of context about the "redistribution of wealth," which Obama is clearly using to refer to reparations or other monetary settlements for centuries of discrimination? Amazing!

-TheE-

[Gan]

Interesting, the GOP is taking a quote out of context about the "redistribution of wealth," which Obama is clearly using to refer to reparations or other monetary settlements for centuries of discrimination? Amazing!

-TheE-

What? You mean Obama's social redistribution plan isnt just reparations in disguise?!?

:wtf:

[TheEschaton]

:lol:

I love the sarcasm Gan. Good work.

[Mabus]

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted,
And that does not bother any of you supporters? That he would "lament" that SCOTUS did not "break free" of the "essential constraints" of our Constitution?

I look at that phrase and see someone that is not fit to be president.

How the hell can you "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" if you advocate radical redefinitions of the document instead of amendments?

And that is skipping the Obama belief in redistribution.

[Stanley Burrell]

Everyone knows McCain sucks and Obama should ideally; and, dare I say it, be our next leader despite white people.

Whatever though; too many political threads, not enough boob pics. Edited-for-you-to-suck-my-dick-and-include: Or bottomless thread pics either.

[Daniel]

And that does not bother any of you supporters? That he would "lament" that SCOTUS did not "break free" of the "essential constraints" of our Constitution?

I look at that phrase and see someone that is not fit to be president.

How the hell can you "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" if you advocate radical redefinitions of the document instead of amendments?

And that is skipping the Obama belief in redistribution.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Were there women\blacks\minorities who supported and defended the constitution before they were equally protected under it?

If so. I think you just answered your own question.

[TheEschaton]

What Ashliana said: the tragedy is that the civil rights movement didn't focus on outside-the-court remedies.

Furthermore, the piece you bolded simply says the Warren Court wasn't radical, and was actually reasonable in that it stayed within the interpretation of the Constitution as laid out by the Founding Fathers. The passage doesn't suggest or even infer that the Warren Court should have been radical, just that it wasn't.

Edit: Stop being intellectually dishonest, or dumb, whichever it is.

[Mabus]

Furthermore, the piece you bolded simply says the Warren Court wasn't radical, and was actually reasonable in that it stayed within the interpretation of the Constitution as laid out by the Founding Fathers. The passage doesn't suggest or even infer that the Warren Court should have been radical, just that it wasn't.
Listen to the radio interview, like I asked you in another thread.

Obama is stating they were not radical enough, in not providing a redistribution of wealth he feels is necessary for some convoluted view of "social justice".

[TheEschaton]

He is simply saying that RADICAL would have been addressing that issue in the Court, NOT THAT IT (IE, BEING RADICAL) SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.

I swear to God, you're literally fucking retarded.

[TheEschaton]

P.S. That's why he calls them "essential restraints" in the Constitution, which the Warren Court didn't break.