Obama on WBEZ

[kcshocker11]

Gotta love utubes creative editing!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810270008?f=h_latest

On October 27, the Drudge Report featured the following false headline: "2001 Obama: Tragedy that 'Redistribution of Wealth' not Pursued by Supreme Court." Later that morning, Fox News' America's Newsroom echoed the Drudge Report with a false on-screen graphic that read "Obama: 'A tragedy' Supreme Court hasn't addressed wealth redistribution." In fact, as the YouTube audio that the Drudge Report headline linked to demonstrates, during a 2001 interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ, Sen. Barack Obama did not say it is a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court has not addressed wealth redistribution. Contrary to what the Drudge Report and Fox News asserted, the "tragedy" Obama identified during the interview was that the civil rights movement "became so court-focused" in trying to bring about political and economic justice. Obama stated: "And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that 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 coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Obama_advisor_pushes_back_on_redistribution.html?showall

A top legal advisor to Barack Obama, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, said today that Obama's 2001 remarks on "redistributive change" -- pushed hard on the right today -- are being misinterpreted, and that he was actually articulating "conservative" legal principles, and that the then-law professor's "law-speak" was being misinterpreted.

"What the critics are missing is that the term 'redistribution' didn’t man in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer," Sunstein said. "What he’s saying – this is the irony of it – he’s basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals."

The first mention of redistribution, which does not appear on the YouTube clip, comes when Obama discusses a 1973 Supreme Court ruling finding that there is no right to education.

http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=639 Full radio interview!
:whistle: 8)

[wu_shizzle]

So Obama is really a conservative!?!

You've convinced me!!!

[kcshocker11]

So Obama is really a conservative!?!

You've convinced me!!!

Thanks Shiz! :D 8)

[Maggie]

I thought Obama, in this interview, acquitted himself very well – it helps that he was a constitutional law professor. However, Professor Sunstein’s explanation of what Obama really meant is in my mind a bit suspect. If you actually listen to what Obama says it takes quite a leap of faith to simply conclude that all he was referring to were “positive rights” – like the “right” to education or the right to have a lawyer.

What Obama states is that it was, and presumably still is, his view that the Courts are not the best vehicle by which to bring about “redistributive change”. This is because in his view that the Constitution, as currently interpreted by the Court, places certain restrictions (or “essential constraints” as Obama called them) on what the Court should and should not do. I think this is a good thing but I am not sure Obama would concur – as he stated that the Warren Court was not “that radical” or at least radical to the point where they would attempt to discard these constraints.

The better vehicle for bringing about a redistributive change, in Obama’s estimation, is through the political process and grass roots organizing – something Obama has obviously been involved in for decades. There is no doubt that Obama believes that he, or others of like mind, should be able to redistribute wealth – and not just through the tax system but in other ways as well, i.e., nationalized health care, creating a right for all to go to college….

In my opinion, the founders believed the natural rights of the individual in this country should place restrictions and limitations on government. These natural rights are not granted by government –they exist beyond government. I fear that Obama believes that government itself grants these rights….and that government institutions should not be restricted or limited in that government should take a active role in distributing “wealth” because those in government know better and are wiser than the masses.

[Maggie]

An interesting WSJ article....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html

[wu_shizzle]

From the article:

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms.

Very well said...

[RoyalShock]

From the article:

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms.

Very well said...

And I seem to remember a particular Republican primary candidate who ran on a platform of liberty and Constitutional government. :D

[WuDrWu]

It is a fundamental difference in how our country was founded and what a few elitist egg heads who think they know better than everyone else.


They don't. They're wrong. And if we elect him, God help us all.


Simply put this is wrong, wrong, wrong.


Government is too big as it is. Kill people and break things. That's what our government should do, and frankly that's about all.

[SHOCKvalue]

Government is too big as it is. Kill people and break things. That's what our government should do, and frankly that's about all.

:good:

[RoyalShock]

Government is too big as it is. Kill people and break things. That's what our government should do, and frankly that's about all.

I seem to recall a few other things, of which it isn't doing . . .

Promote the general welfare. (Establish fair rules and get out of the way.)

Secure the blessings of liberty. (Patriot act? Federal income/payroll taxes?)

Regulate a stable currency backed by gold and silver. (Fedarel Reserve, paper fiat).

Leave powers not expressly given to its sovereign states. (Education? Social programs?)

It's all so very depressing.

[Maggie]

One overarching problem I have with Obama’s stated position that empathy should govern decisions made by courts is that it necessarily impedes upon the legal principle of stare decisis – this principle is a constraint upon the courts and probably a big reason why Obama does not believe the Courts are the best vehicle for the change he envisions.

However, that doesn’t mean they can’t be that vehicle. Imagine a court system in which you don’t really know what the “law” is until the Judge tells you.

A judge or a panel of judges may feel empathy for a plaintiff or defendant; however, that should not govern their decision. Nor should it govern the decision of a jury. Courts exist to dispense justice in accordance with the rule of law whether or not a litigant is a sympathetic figure.