Obama 2001 interview

[PeterMP]

"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

Its not structured that way w/ respect to administrating the result that it wants. Not that it isn't structured that way w/ respect to the Constitution and being able to create rulings that will give redistributive change.

[daveakl]

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.

haha, I thought I had, fixed now No words are mine except the interested in peoples thoughts.

[Prosperity]

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.

yes he did

no one says the court should act unconsitutionally when they are making points, they say that their idea would be consitutional

Obama clearly says that it would be unconstitutional

Its not structured that way w/ respect to administrating the result that it wants. Not that it isn't structured that way w/ respect to the Constitution and being able to create rulings that will give redistributive change.

He is saying that the court shouldn't give redistributive change because 1. it is outside the court's domain (constitution) and 2. it hurts minorities.

He is saying minorities ought to use their political powers in the legislature, which seems to me a good idea. You are conflating two separate ideas redistributive change as beneficial to minorities, and the courts decision on those changes.

NOWHERE in that quote, whether explicit or implicit does Obama say that the courts should be the one's making those changes. And he most definitely doesn't say the court system's structure ought to changed for that end.

[PeterMP]

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)

He doesn't actually say that.

He says that the way the Constitution has been interperted has been as negative liberties. He no where says he supports that interpertation.

There is more than what is quoted in response to an answer from a listener. To me the answer to that question is simple, 'No, that isn't the role of the couts.' Instead, he talks about the difficulty of the courts w/ respect to actual administration of such claims.

Is this real? How much has been cut up? To me, this is the kind of stuff that I can't believe didn't come out sooner.

[Prosperity]

Those are Obama's words from the interview.

The quoted part is the transcript.

sorry, I didn't know

I can't listen to the video (no audio here)

so I went by text

[TuckahoeSkin]

Liberty,

Peter's right. The answer is simple. This is another one of those complicated "above my pay grade" answers from Obama. I said it previously. He sounds like he is lamenting the way our Constitution is structured. Given the opportunity, I suspect he would like to rewrite it or throw out parts of it altogether.

These are the issues that bother so many opponents of Obama. When we complain about the media umbrella he's been protected by, and we dig to find items like this interview, we go nuts. The American people NEED to know this before the election.

[Prosperity]

He doesn't actually say that.

He says that the way the Constitution has been interperted has been as negative liberties. He no where says he supports that interpertation.

There is more than what is quoted in response to an answer from a listener. To me the answer to that question is simple, 'No, that isn't the role of the couts.' Instead, he talks about the difficulty of the courts w/ respect to actual administration of such claims.

Is this real? How much has been cut up? To me, this is the kind of stuff that I can't believe didn't come out sooner.

well I think the answer is simple from your perspective but a constitutional legal scholar probably has a more nuanced way to think about it, right? I mean nowhere does he say that the court ought to be radical, and saying that the current interpretation is not radical is I think something that gives the current interpretation credibility from Obama.

but aside from that I haven't listened to it, I have only gone by the provided transcript

[daveakl]

sorry, I didn't know

I can't listen to the video (no audio here)

so I went by text

no worries, I did a crappy job of posting by not thinking to put the quotes in at first.

[TuckahoeSkin]

well I think the answer is simple from your perspective but a constitutional legal scholar probably has a more nuanced way to think about it, right?

but aside from that I haven't listened to it, I have only gone by the provided transcript

The problem is most of those "Constitutional Scholars" nuance themselves into pretzels. Some have even begun to look at rulings from Europe in influencing decisions on our Supreme Court. :doh:

[PeterMP]

yes he did

no one says the court should act unconsitutionally when they are making points, they say that their idea would be consitutional

Obama clearly says that it would be unconstitutional

He is saying that the court shouldn't give redistributive change because 1. it is outside the court's domain (constitution) and 2. it hurts minorities.

He is saying minorities ought to use their political powers in the legislature, which seems to me a good idea. You are conflating two separate ideas redistributive change as beneficial to minorities, and the courts decision on those changes.

NOWHERE in that quote, whether explicit or implicit does Obama say that the courts should be the one's making those changes. And he most definitely doesn't say the court system's structure ought to changed for that end.

Not part of the original transcript. I've done the best I can typing quickly. I was more careful w/ the Obama quote, especially the ending:

Listener: “with economic changes is to late for that kind of it to late for that kind of reparative work to take place?”

Host: “You mean the court?”

Listener: “The courts or would it be legislation at this point?”

Obama: “Maybe I’m showing my bias as a legislator as well as a law professor I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court for example was willing to order changes that cost money to local school districts the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the Court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially administrative and takes a lot of time. The courts just aren’t very good at it and politically its just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I mean I think you can craft theoretical justifications legally. I think any 3 of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

[PeterMP]

well I think the answer is simple from your perspective but a constitutional legal scholar probably has a more nuanced way to think about it, right? I mean nowhere does he say that the court ought to be radical, and saying that the current interpretation is not radical is I think something that gives the current interpretation credibility from Obama.

but aside from that I haven't listened to it, I have only gone by the provided transcript

I've transcribed the rest above. I generally disagree though. Saying something ISN'T radical w/ respect to the court isn't evidence of not supporting. Saying that something isn't possible w/ respect to the court is evidence of not supporting it.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

What do you think the role of judges is? I suppose you are referring to federal judges only too.

[TuckahoeSkin]

I wonder if they will be some "big" news story that will come along in the next day or so to bury this?

[DjTj]

He doesn't actually say that.

He says that the way the Constitution has been interperted has been as negative liberties. He no where says he supports that interpertation.

There is more than what is quoted in response to an answer from a listener. To me the answer to that question is simple, 'No, that isn't the role of the couts.' Instead, he talks about the difficulty of the courts w/ respect to actual administration of such claims.

Is this real? How much has been cut up? To me, this is the kind of stuff that I can't believe didn't come out sooner.

This is something you really need to hear in context. What was the subject of the entire interview? What were they debating?

The quote from the original post sounds very much like something I have heard said by many Constitutional legal scholars. The Courts were never well-equipped to carry out the real heavy-lifting of the Civil Rights movement. A Court is actually a pretty poor administrative entity for supervising school desegregation. The Civil Rights movement focused on the Courts because that's where they had their early successes, but real change could only come from the communities and from changing attitudes so that a majority actually supported the ideas.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

yes he did

no one says the court should act unconsitutionally when they are making points, they say that their idea would be consitutional

Obama clearly says that it would be unconstitutional

He is saying that the court shouldn't give redistributive change because 1. it is outside the court's domain (constitution) and 2. it hurts minorities.

He is saying minorities ought to use their political powers in the legislature, which seems to me a good idea. You are conflating two separate ideas redistributive change as beneficial to minorities, and the courts decision on those changes.

NOWHERE in that quote, whether explicit or implicit does Obama say that the courts should be the one's making those changes. And he most definitely doesn't say the court system's structure ought to changed for that end.

Exactly.

[TuckahoeSkin]

What do you think the role of judges is? I suppose you are referring to federal judges only too.

??? Judges should rule on cases using the laws enacted by the legislative branch. It is not the role of judges to craft laws. This goes to all judges.

Do you see it differently?

[PeterMP]

This is something you really need to hear in context. What was the subject of the entire interview? What were they debating?

The quote from the original post sounds very much like something I have heard said by many Constitutional legal scholars. The Courts were never well-equipped to carry out the real heavy-lifting of the Civil Rights movement. A Court is actually a pretty poor administrative entity for supervising school desegregation. The Civil Rights movement focused on the Courts because that's where they had their early successes, but real change could only come from the communities and from changing attitudes so that a majority actually supported the ideas.

That's right. The arguement isn't that they shouldn't because its unconstitutional, but that they aren't good at it from an administrative point. Again, from the link, but not part of the transcript:

"The courts just aren’t very good at it and politically its just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I mean I think you can craft theoretical justifications legally. I think any 3 of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

From my perspective, that's disappointing to hear.

[Prosperity]

Yes this new transcript does change this. Is the OP's said right after this one?

[alexey]

The problem is most of those "Constitutional Scholars" nuance themselves into pretzels. Some have even begun to look at rulings from Europe in influencing decisions on our Supreme Court. :doh:

Looking at experiences of others helps gain insights. Maybe this does not hold true for your particular line of work, but it does in many others.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

That's right. The arguement isn't that they shouldn't because its unconstitutional, but that they aren't good at it from an administrative point. Again, from the link, but not part of the transcript:

"The courts just aren’t very good at it and politically its just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I mean I think you can craft theoretical justifications legally. I think any 3 of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

From my perspective, that's disappointing to hear.

He's saying the Courts are not good at it because it is not the constitutionally intended purpose.

No one disputes that. Not even the most liberal judge. The court's are a slow system. They do not bring about immediate change in 99% of what they do. There are tons of checks and balances on the courts. They do not issue advisory opinions, they only resolve actual controversies before them.

[Midnight Judges]

Liberty,

Peter's right. The answer is simple. This is another one of those complicated "above my pay grade" answers from Obama. .

lol I think his answer is above your pay grade

I said it previously. He sounds like he is lamenting the way our Constitution is structured. Given the opportunity, I suspect he would like to rewrite it or throw out parts of it altogether.

It was designed to be amended yet you speak as if contemplating an amendement is inherently wrong. You do realize in Lincoln's day, conventional wisdom was that slavery was constitutionally protected.

These are the issues that bother so many opponents of Obama. When we complain about the media umbrella he's been protected by, and we dig to find items like this interview, we go nuts. The American people NEED to know this before the election

You'll go nuts when your Republican overlords command you to go nuts. It has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with people who know how to push your buttons. There is nothing is these quotes that indicates Obama thinks the courts are a worthy vehicle to enact economic policy. In fact he criticises the civil rights movement for focusing too much on the courts and not enough on legislation.

[HOF44]

To me it says regardless of your outlook on his opinions, it speaks to the fact that he is a thoughtful and intelligent person.

[TuckahoeSkin]

Looking at experiences of others helps gain insights. Maybe this does not hold true for your particular line of work, but it does in many others.

I don't disagree with that, but in our system it is up to the legislative branch to do so. The legislative branch writes the laws. The judiciary merely interprets them.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

??? Judges should rule on cases using the laws enacted by the legislative branch. It is not the role of judges to craft laws. This goes to all judges.

Do you see it differently?

Yes, I do. That is not the role of the courts as written in the Constitution.

[PeterMP]

Yes this new transcript does change this. Is the OP's said right after this one?

It runs together on the YouTube audio, but it has clearly been cut up. Maybe they took a commercial and after the commercial took callers.

That's why I asked how much as this been cut up.