Monday, 27 October 2008
|0423 - Obama: The "tragedy" of the Warren Court|
Obama said that it's a "tragedy" that the Earl Warren Supreme Court didn't reinterpret the Constitution to redistribute wealth to African-Americans.
Anyone still think the guy's not out to redistribute wealth? That's a position fundamentally at odds with the basis of our economic system. Obama will complete the destruction of our economy that his left-wing buddies started when they created the current economic crisis.
current mood: angry
That is pretty telling.
I'm a Christian, and I look at the New Testament Christians (and a similar group in the Book of Mormon) who "had all things in common." This was redistribution, equitable and completely voluntary, among church members. I see it as a good thing, and to an extent I participate in that by paying tithes and contributing above that amount to my church's welfare program.
BUT... even within the church, it is voluntary. It MUST be voluntary. The moment it is compulsory, the moment we are forced to "have all things in common" we move from charitable living to tyranny.
From another angle, "having all things in common" is a biblical principle. It could be argued that forcing that through government intervention verges on violating the separation of Church and State.
Poverty is awful. Homelessness is a terrible thing. Sick and similarly afflicted folks with no access to even basic health care services is tragic. But putting the government in charge of solving these problems will only lead to a tyranny in which the problems remain unsolved. As Americans we can do better than abdicating any personal responsibility for these problems after voting for somebody who promises to fix everything.
He's talking about state supreme court decisions and school funding in that clip, not wholesale nationwide wealth redistribution. And the clips they use aren't even in order.
If you'd listened to the entire hour long program, which is archived and available online
, instead of just watching a 4 minute collection of context-free quotes from it, you'd know that.
But you didn't, so you don't. That's ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst.
Try again! Boy, you've been angry lately.
Anyone who thinks the courts can and should redistribute wealth is dangerous. Obama convicts himself by his own words. This isn't out of the ordinary, as his unscripted comment about "spreading the wealth" attests.
Yes, I'm angry. I'm angry that we appear to be heading toward giving the far left an unchecked power to tax those who are successful to give to those who are not. I'm especially angry because he's going to tax the small business I work for in the name of "soaking the rich". I'll be more than a little surprised if I have a job this time next year, should he be elected.
Anyone who thinks the courts can and should redistribute wealth is dangerous. Obama convicts himself by his own words.
Again, your ignorance and inability to think for yourself is showing. Go listen to the entire interview, instead of the four minute agitprop remix, and tell me where exactly Barack Obama claims the courts should be redistributing wealth. Exact timings (mm:ss) would be quite helpful.
Christ, it's like talking to a wall.
Here's the transcript:
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 invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
To that extent, as radical as I think people try 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, at least as its 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 doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …
I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.
He's clearly expressing regret that the courts didn't "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" and venture into "the issues of redistribution of wealth."
No, he isn't. Your reading comprehension skills need a bit of work.
He's expressing some regret that, during the Civil Rights movement, a lot of emphasis was given to guaranteeing individual human rights by way of the court system, and that it's unfortunate that the means of bringing about greater socioeconomic change (i.e. through community organizing and local activism) were overlooked during that time.
He then goes on to say that the court system is probably not the way to go about bringing economic equality to depressed areas of America, and that that's what local organization and activism is for.
. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
He's not saying "We did A, instead of B, and that's a shame." He's saying "A never happened, and that's a shame."
...are you being (deliberately) obtuse? Did you listen to the entire radio program, or just the youtube clip? It should be pretty damn clear what he meant.
Did he or did he not say "I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts."? "Major redistributive change" is not something that anyone short of a Marxist can be optimistic about.
Did you or did you not listen to the entire program yet, so you have at least some idea of what you're talking about?
Way to dodge, by answering a question with a question.
I answered it already, right here on this very page, in fact
. Can't believe you missed it.
But it's clear you've only watched the spliced-together YouTube clip anyway, so there's no sense in carrying this any further.
Your earlier answer shows that Obama thinks "major redistributive change" is a Good Thing. Anyone who thinks that is not someone I want serving in public office at any level, never mind as President.
Well - I think we're in for the second coming of Jimmy Carter - but I can't quite work up the same sense of outrage that you have in the last couple dozen posts I've seen from ya.
I have the disturbing feeling that either candidate is going to try and shuffle a New Deal through in a misguided attempt to jumpstart the economy... and at this point, I would be happy to vote for EITHER candidate if I actually thought they had a good plan to (and the ability to) fix the economy. But I'm not convinced McCain does and I have no reason to think Obama does.
I am not at all sure what this will look like when the dust clears, though.
By the time we're shed of the guy, we'll look back fondly on Carter's term of office by comparison.