Obama 2001 interview

[daveakl]

text:

"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."

Interested in people's thoughts on this.

[TuckahoeSkin]

Get ready to be accused of being unfair for posting a quote of his own words.

Obama does not believe we are a good and just country. He feels we are the cause of problems in the world. I hope the American people wake up to this. He will do irrevocable harm to this nation.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

My first thought: half of the tailgate will harp on one word: redistributive. Somehow, this will be equated with socialism, or some idea that obama wants to spread the wealth around.

My second thought: its a pretty good explanation of the role of the courts and the fact that they influence the country in the long term, and do not - and should not - be used to create seismic shifts in the country's direction.

[Prosperity]

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. …

he is SPOT on here

the focus on court cases often leads the oppressed (gays now, and always women) to focus their attention to the judicial branches. If as much pressure was put on the legislative branches entire groups of people wouldn't be dependent on court cases and their appeals on such a constant basis. There is a lot of untapped political power that is unused, and that is unfortunate for the oppressed.

HE NEVER SAYS REDISTRIBUTION OUGHT TO COME FROM THE COURTS, IN FACT HE SAYS THE OPPOSITE OF THAT*

please read carefully

redistribution through the courts is unconstitutional by his reasoning:

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.

[TuckahoeSkin]

My first thought: half of the tailgate will harp on one word: redistributive. Somehow, this will be equated with socialism, or some idea that obama wants to spread the wealth around.

My second thought: its a pretty good explanation of the role of the courts and the fact that they influence the country in the long term, and do not - and should not - be used to create seismic shifts in the country's direction.

The courts should judge cases by the rule of law established by the legislative branch. What you are describing is contradictory to this. Judges are not elected. They should not legislate from the bench.

[brianm23]

Isn't that video edited big time? Somebody posted the full interview up here in another thread.

[TuckahoeSkin]

he is SPOT on here

the focus on court cases often leads the oppressed (gays now, and always women) to focus their attention to the judicial branches. If as much pressure was put on the legislative branches entire groups of people wouldn't be dependent on court cases and their appeals on such a constant basis. There is a lot of untapped political power that is unused, and that is unfortunate for the oppressed.

They've focused on the courts because radical measures don't get approved by the voters.

[TuckahoeSkin]

Isn't that video edited big time? Somebody posted the full interview up here in another thread.

See post #2.

[Midnight Judges]

text:

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.

Interested in people's thoughts on this.

He's saying the total opposite of what you think he's saying.

[Prosperity]

They've focused on the courts because radical measures don't get approved by the voters.

they do when people use their political power

if women used their political power to defend abortion rights legislatively... game over for the pro-life crowd

The courts should judge cases by the rule of law established by the legislative branch. What you are describing is contradictory to this. Judges are not elected. They should not legislate from the bench.

according to Obama they don't and should not

the person you quoted does not disagree

you are disagreeing with hypothetical arguments no one has presented

[TuckahoeSkin]

they do when people use their political power

if women used their political power to defend abortion rights legislatively... game over for the pro-life crowd

You are assuming that all women support abortion. The numbers are not as stacked as you think.

[brianm23]

See post #2.

That post has nothing to do with what I said.

[Prosperity]

You are assuming that all women support abortion. The numbers are not as stacked as you think.

no I don't assume that, most do and that is a huge amount of power

[daveakl]

He's saying the total opposite of what you think he's saying.

Do tell me, what do I think he is saying?

I have made no offer as to my opinions on this so let's hear what I am thinking.

[Koolblue13]

That post has nothing to do with what I said.

I was wondering that as well.

[Smoot Point Really]

IF all this is true (have to make this caveat until I see the "Why'd He Tape"):

Do you believe the Warren Court should have gone farther than it did? What should the Federal Government do "on your behalf?"

He actually says "we still suffer" because they were focused on the court and not on community organizing to help bring about "redistributive change"...

[Prosperity]

Do tell me, what do I think he is saying?

I have made no offer as to my opinions on this so let's hear what I am thinking.

"I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way."

you ought to be optimistic because the likely president agrees with you

[Midnight Judges]

Do tell me, what do I think he is saying?

I have made no offer as to my opinions on this so let's hear what I am thinking.

Are these your words or are they from the text?

I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

[TuckahoeSkin]

"I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way."

you ought to be optimistic because the likely president agrees with you

It sounds like he is lamenting that fact.

[daveakl]

"I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way."

you ought to be optimistic because the likely president agrees with you

huh?

[daveakl]

Are these your words or are they from the text?

Those are Obama's words from the interview.

The quoted part is the transcript.

[Midnight Judges]

Those are Obama's words from the interview.

The quoted part is the transcript.

hmmmm need more context then. It would have helped if you put the quote in a wrap quote box and your own words out of the quote box.

[Prosperity]

huh?

Obama says the courts are and should be constitutionally restrained within the framework of limiting government actions by outlining what the government CAN'T do. (civil rights) The government doesn't legislate rights, they are ours regardless of what the legislature says. The legislature is the one with the power to allocate resources, so any issues dealing with redistribution of wealth (like paying for the school of minority-majority areas) ought to be dealt with in the legislature and not in court, because that is outside the courts domain.

Therefore, you ought to be optimistic because Obama doesn't want the courts to do the legislature's job.

It sounds like he is lamenting that fact.

huh?

[PeterMP]

He's saying the total opposite of what you think he's saying.

What he DIDN'T say to me is the big thing. He DIDN'T say that the courts shouldn't (in his opinion) take part in redistributive actions. He said that they DIDN'T (and then part on in the text) that it was hard from them to do it, and he didn't think that was the best way to approach the problem going forward, but he never said that he DIDN'T think the courts should take such actions because it would in fact be unconstitutional.

[daveakl]

Obama says the courts are and should be constitutionally restrained within the framework of limiting government actions by outlining what the government CAN'T do. (civil rights) The government doesn't legislate rights, they are ours regardless of what the legislature says. The legislature is the one with the power to allocate resources, so any issues dealing with redistribution of wealth (like paying for the school of minority-majority areas) ought to be dealt with in the legislature and not in court, because that is outside the courts domain.

Therefore, you ought to be optimistic because Obama doesn't want the courts to do the legislature's job.

huh?

I think you are mistaking his words for mine