Obama 2001 interview

[daveakl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFf7DU9ywQ4&feature=related

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]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFf7DU9ywQ4&feature=related

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

[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 :D 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.

[alexey]

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.
I would argue that looking at experiences of others would still benefit that process.

[TuckahoeSkin]

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


Could you expand on your view of it?

[PeterMP]

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.

He's saying that he can theoritically think of legal reasons why the courts should do something the non-radical Wararen court did, but doesn't think its as practical as other solutions.

Not that it shouldn't be done through the courts because the Constitution doesn't allow the courts to do it.

[TuckahoeSkin]

I would argue that looking at experiences of others would still benefit that process.


Again, I don't disagree. I am saying that that is the role of the legislative, not the judiciary. We have a code of laws, written by our elected officials. Judges should rule based on the laws governing their jurisdiction. It is wrong to sit on the bench in any state in the US and look to Belgium for laws governing a ruling.

[Baculus]

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.

I disagree with this statement - I do not think he has demonstrated any tendencies that the court should act on behalf of citizens for "redistributive change." In fact, as he says, the "the institution just isn’t structured that way."

Do you have any further data that "he would like to rewrite it or throw out parts of it altogether"? Also, explain further how this is an "above my pay grade" answer from Obama?

I see little evidence that Obama wants to gut Constitutional rights, nor change the role of the Constitution into some activist document. Because he would surely have opposition from both parties if that was the case.

What, do we really think that Obama is going to suggest some amendment that would require the government to provide health care and "wealth redistribution"? (As opposed to the Right's objective to overturn Roe v. Wade, etc...)

That ain't going to happen, and as Obama recently said, now isn't the time to engage in "crazy things" or "sudden lurches to the left."

[TuckahoeSkin]

lol I think his answer is above your pay grade



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.



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.


Explain yourself. Others here have been having a debate on this issue. There have been no personal insults involved here. Yet, rather than reinforce an argument, you toss out this crap. Internet hero.

Take a step back and make a strong argument. Support your argument with logic, not insults. So far this thread has been pretty good. I'd like to see it continue.

[alexey]

Again, I don't disagree. I am saying that that is the role of the legislative, not the judiciary. We have a code of laws, written by our elected officials. Judges should rule based on the laws governing their jurisdiction. It is wrong to sit on the bench in any state in the US and look to Belgium for laws governing a ruling.
Let me get this straight:

1) You agree that valuable insights can be gained by looking at experiences of other countries.

2) You think that it is wrong to look at Belgium for that purpose.

Does this mean you have some kind of beef with Belgium?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think this is a pretty sophisticated view of the triumphs and failings of the civil rights movement.

And - for the record - he never comes out in favor of redistribution. He is simply saying that if you want redistribution of wealth, it cannot occur through the courts. The courts can stop the government from supporting segregation. It can do little to force the government to end inequality.

[Thiebear]

fark.com: Yes or No: Should not the disallowance of use of misdirecting language not be used to confuse Michigan voters on whether or not to disallow the ban on alcohol sales on Sunday?

This is what i think when i read what Obama said :)

"People keep saying he didn't actually say this or not in 2001" but didn't he recently admit it to Joe the Plumber.
So using that as the basis of what he thinks make it clear what he was saying?

[DjTj]

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.But any law professor would say the same thing. That's what lawyers get paid money to do - craft legal justifications for just about anything.

The entire battle over the constitutionality of economic redistribution was fought during the New Deal, when the Supreme Court initially overturned a lot of FDR's legislation. The ship has already sailed on the constitutionality of Social Security, Medicare, or the federal minimum wage.

I think it's absolutely right that the only real barrier is practicality. The courts engage in redistribution all the time when they decide bankruptcy cases or disability claims. Divorce cases are basically a redistribution proceeding based on how much money people make. There's no question of constitutionality here - courts clearly have the power to take money from some people and give it to others. It really is just a question of practicality. I actually can't think of any good ways to promote large-scale economic redistribution through the courts (we want poor people to file a class action against rich people? :whoknows: ) ... it really is something best left to the legislative and executive branches.

[TuckahoeSkin]

Let me get this straight:

1) You agree that valuable insights can be gained by looking at experiences of other countries.

2) You think that it is wrong to look at Belgium for that purpose.

Does this mean you have some kind of beef with Belgium?


We are governed by laws enacted by our elected legislators. We are NOT governed by laws and statutes enacted in Belgium or France or anywhere else. Other than that, I have no beef with Belgium.

[PeterMP]

But any law professor would say the same thing. That's what lawyers get paid money to do - craft legal justifications for just about anything.

The entire battle over the constitutionality of economic redistribution was fought during the New Deal, when the Supreme Court initially overturned a lot of FDR's legislation. The ship has already sailed on the constitutionality of Social Security, Medicare, or the federal minimum wage.

I think it's absolutely right that the only real barrier is practicality. The courts engage in redistribution all the time when they decide bankruptcy cases or disability claims. Divorce cases are basically a redistribution proceeding based on how much money people make. There's no question of constitutionality here - courts clearly have the power to take money from some people and give it to others. It really is just a question of practicality. I actually can't think of any good ways to promote large-scale economic redistribution through the courts (we want poor people to file a class action against rich people? :whoknows: ) ... it really is something best left to the legislative and executive branches.

Okay, I'm sorry. I THINK I misunderstood your comments, and I now think your comments are opposite of most of the Obama supporters in this thread.

Let me pick an extreme example. You seem to believe that Constitutionally there would be nothing wrong with the Supreme Court ordering reparations to people's whose ancestors were slaves. The only real issue is the practicallity of carrying it out.

And in terms of the Constitutionality of an issue already "sailing" I'm glad that that some of the people in this country didn't adapt that stance after Plessy v. Fergunson.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The one aspect Obama seems to overlook in this interview - or perhaps it was just not quoted - was the difficulty of winning the civil rights battles in the legislator or executive branch during the 60s and 70s. The courst were the only path which made sense.

But he is right that continuing that strategy into the 21st Century has been a mistake. And I think you only have to look to the gay marriage movement to see that in evidence. The courts made decisions which did not have legislative backing and we now have a mess.

[DjTj]

Okay, I'm sorry. I THINK I misunderstood your comments, and I now think your comments are opposite of most of the Obama supporters in this thread.Well, I am saying that there's nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit the Court from ordering reparations.

For example, Congress in 1988 passed a law granting reparations for Japanese-Americans who had been interned during World War II. If you made a claim for those reparations but were denied, you went to the courts and they decided the merits of your case. There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits courts from acting in the realm of economic redistribution.


Let me pick an extreme example. You seem to believe that Constitutionally there would be nothing wrong with the Supreme Court ordering reparations to people's whose ancestors were slaves. The only real issue is the practicallity of carrying it out.So you're asking me if an individual who brought a case claiming some form of reparations for their ancestors, would the Court have power to award some form of damages? I would say yes, it is certainly within their power. I have no idea what the merits of the case might be, and someone seeking reparations would likely lose their case, but you could probably at least make out some kind of claim.

People have tried this in recent years, and while they have lost on the majority of their claims, I think the case is still alive based on a theory of consumer fraud: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20061219.html

The question that I think you're asking is, if a state passed a law awarding reparations, would the Constitution prohibit the Court from enforcing that law? And I would say no, it's not prohibited by the Constitution.


And in terms of the Constitutionality of an issue already "sailing" I'm glad that that some of the people in this country didn't adapt that stance after Plessy v. Fergunson.Constitutional interpretation certainly does change over time, but Plessy is the exception rather than the rule. Social Security and welfare and the federal minimum wage are all perfectly Constitutional and I expect them to remain that way for a long time. Nobody has succeeded in a direct reparations lawsuit, and that will probably also be trued for a long time.

...but it doesn't mean that it couldn't happen someday - and all I'm saying is that there is no explicit prohibition in the Constitution.

[HBnotBlades]

I don't see how we can really take anything from this video, that video is so obviously heavily edited that it's hard to trust the quotes that are pulled out. The last thing he says is a prime example.


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...”

In the video it sounds like he's halfway through making his point, in fact, it sounds like he wasn't even finished with that sentence. The audio cuts out so quickly after he says "courts" that it seems like whoever edited the audio did it to cut off the rest of his answer to the question. They did so in a way that makes quote fairly ambiguous and to up to listener interpretation.

The full audio would shed a lot of light on this.

[PeterMP]

People have tried this in recent years, and while they have lost on the majority of their claims, I think the case is still alive based on a theory of consumer fraud: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20061219.html


This is what I'm asking not other questions about IF a law was passed. That's not what happened in many cases w/ respect to the civil rights movement.

You believe Obama would support the general idea that a Constitutional arguement could be made for paying reparations for slavary based on any theory (consumer fraud or otherwise).

I always get myself in a little trouble w/ these things because at the end of the line whether I agree w/ them or not, the Supreme Court can't be wrong w/ respect to the Constitution. There is on Constitutionally allowed measure for a "misinterperatation" by the Supreme Court so if the Supreme Courts says its Constitutional, it must be.

However, with respect to this election, I think this would be a dangerous thing for Obama to admit, and I think you even see that in the arguements put forward by most of his supporters in this thread.

For example:


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.

I think you are saying the opposite. The court does have the authority to allocate resources and such an allocation, like paying reparations, wouldn't be that far beyond the courts currently defined powers.

[PeterMP]

I don't see how we can really take anything from this video, that video is so obviously heavily edited that it's hard to trust the quotes that are pulled out. The last thing he says is a prime example.



In the video it sounds like he's halfway through making his point, in fact, it sounds like he wasn't even finished with that sentence. The audio cuts out so quickly after he says "courts" that it seems like whoever edited the audio did it to cut off the rest of his answer to the question. They did so in a way that makes quote fairly ambiguous and to up to listener interpretation.

The full audio would shed a lot of light on this.

Obviously, I'm having this discussion in the context of the audio we have. I woudn't be shocked if its an inaccurate representation of it.

I think if nothing else I've learned somethings from DjTj.

[Prosperity]

I think you are saying the opposite. The court does have the authority to allocate resources and such an allocation, like paying reparations, wouldn't be that far beyond the courts currently defined powers.

ehhh I'm confused I give up

[PeterMP]

ehhh I'm confused I give up

I think DjTj is saying something essentially opposite of your comments. To me, you are saying the court can't order to montary redistribution (I'm using reparations as an example) because of limits placed on the courts by the Constitution.

As I understand DjTj's point, that's not correct. In fact, there is a case out there (that hasn't been decided) that is seeking to do just that. As it is incorrect, it is unlikely to have been Obama's point.

[daveakl]

I would love to find the entire interview but this is all that is out there right now.

[Smoot Point Really]

CAVEAT - IF THIS IS ALL ACCURATE:

Many are arguing about the text as it applies to the Judicial branch. What I find more interesting is how he realized the limitations of the judicial branch and shows regret that the CR movement relied heavily on the courts. Then he talks about a coalition of powers (political and community organizing) being the agent for "redistributive change".

Senator Obama revealed his playbook back in 2001...

[Prosperity]

I think DjTj is saying something essentially opposite of your comments. To me, you are saying the court can't order to montary redistribution (I'm using reparations as an example) because of limits placed on the courts by the Constitution.

As I understand DjTj's point, that's not correct. In fact, there is a case out there (that hasn't been decided) that is seeking to do just that. As it is incorrect, it is unlikely to have been Obama's point.

well I get that, I mean that I give up my argument I am wrong

[DjTj]

I think you are saying the opposite. The court does have the authority to allocate resources and such an allocation, like paying reparations, wouldn't be that far beyond the courts currently defined powers.Yes. The simplest case would be where an explicit law was passed, but I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that somebody would find a less explicit way to justify some form of reparations. The most likely way I could see it happening is as a side effect of some state law that is passed for another purpose, which is where the class action against Aetna and CSX and others is going with the consumer fraud argument.

It wasn't long ago that people would have said that it was impossible to sue tobacco companies in a class action, but progress in both science and law changed that about a decade ago first for asbestos and then for tobacco. Maybe slavery reparations could be based on some kind of breakthrough in economics or psychology that could characterize the damages, or maybe even genetics that could clearly identify the victims.

I really don't know. I can't predict the future, and I don't know what kind of claims people might be able to bring.

But I do know that if someone comes up with a cognizable claim for reparations, that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits courts from redistributing things. Bankruptcies, divorces, disability claims ...courts redistribute things all the time, so that is clearly within their power.

[PeterMP]

Yes. The simplest case would be where an explicit law was passed, but I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that somebody would find a less explicit way to justify some form of reparations. The most likely way I could see it happening is as a side effect of some state law that is passed for another purpose, which is where the class action against Aetna and CSX and others is going with the consumer fraud argument.

It wasn't long ago that people would have said that it was impossible to sue tobacco companies in a class action, but progress in both science and law changed that about a decade ago first for asbestos and then for tobacco. Maybe slavery reparations could be based on some kind of breakthrough in economics or psychology that could characterize the damages, or maybe even genetics that could clearly identify the victims.

I really don't know. I can't predict the future, and I don't know what kind of claims people might be able to bring.

But I do know that if someone comes up with a cognizable claim for reparations, that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits courts from redistributing things. Bankruptcies, divorces, disability claims ...courts redistribute things all the time, so that is clearly within their power.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Smoot Point Really]

Yes. The simplest case would be where an explicit law was passed, but I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that somebody would find a less explicit way to justify some form of reparations. The most likely way I could see it happening is as a side effect of some state law that is passed for another purpose, which is where the class action against Aetna and CSX and others is going with the consumer fraud argument.

It wasn't long ago that people would have said that it was impossible to sue tobacco companies in a class action, but progress in both science and law changed that about a decade ago first for asbestos and then for tobacco. Maybe slavery reparations could be based on some kind of breakthrough in economics or psychology that could characterize the damages, or maybe even genetics that could clearly identify the victims.

I really don't know. I can't predict the future, and I don't know what kind of claims people might be able to bring.

But I do know that if someone comes up with a cognizable claim for reparations, that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits courts from redistributing things. Bankruptcies, divorces, disability claims ...courts redistribute things all the time, so that is clearly within their power.

DJTJ,

Thanks for sharing. I followed some of the argument, but I'm at work and can't spend too much time on it. I wasn't so much concerned about whether or not the courts could do such a thing as redistribute wealth, as I was that Obama perceived the court wasn't the agent for it and decided to try getting it done elsewhere. :)

One thing that I would like to ask:

In Bankruptcies, Divorces, Disabilities Claims... Courts redistribute things, as you mentioned... However, these "redistributions" result from contract disputes over legally documented agreements (marriages, documents of incorporation, etc) or they come from a party that is harmed by the actions of another and proved in court. I am under the impression that there isn't as much clarity on the issue of reparations as there would be on those issues you brought up.

While the court can redistribute... In the case that Senator Obama is talking about in this audio: Who pays? Who receives payment? Who breached contract? Who was negligent?

If this was covered earlier... I apologize.

[DjTj]

While the court can redistribute... In the case that Senator Obama is talking about in this audio: Who pays? Who receives payment? Who breached contract? Who was negligent?

If this was covered earlier... I apologize.This wasn't covered in the thread earlier, and it's a good question.

The most recent cases involved people suing insurance companies, railroads, and banks:

Aetna has acknowledged issuing life insurance policies on an undetermined number of slaves, naming their owners as beneficiaries. Fleet's earliest predecessor bank was founded by John Brown, a notorious Rhode Island slave trader. CSX owns early rail lines built by slaves.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/03/25/slave-reparations.htm

...and while those cases haven't really gotten anywhere yet, they are still kicking around in the courts after many years, and it's still theoretically possible that someone could get some money.

But the reason that nobody has really been successful at getting reparations is basically the reason that you state: it is not at all clear who should pay, who should get the money, or who was really responsible.

The Japanese internees had a much stronger case, and they had to wait for Congress to act. The courts aren't very good for this sort of thing ... but they're not prohibited from acting.

[alexey]

We are governed by laws enacted by our elected legislators. We are NOT governed by laws and statutes enacted in Belgium or France or anywhere else. Other than that, I have no beef with Belgium.
I must have misunderstood you when you wrote this:

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:
I thought you were against using experiences of rulings in other contries to gain insights. Heck, I thought that "nuance themselves into pretzels" statement meant you were against gaining insights in general.

[TuckahoeSkin]

I must have misunderstood you when you wrote this:

I thought you were against using experiences of rulings in other contries to gain insights. Heck, I thought that "nuance themselves into pretzels" statement meant you were against gaining insights in general.

I'm against anyone on the bench looking to other countries for inspiration in ruling on cases here.

I am not against the legislative branch considering good ideas from other countries and crafting laws that work within our accepted system here.

[Siven]

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.

Uh we need to mind our own ****ing business.

We are constantly involved in other countries' affairs.

We need to focus on America, because right now, as it stands, the US has caused a lot of damage to the world. We've funded extremists who go out and commit genocide because it was a matter of "national security."

[TuckahoeSkin]

Uh we need to mind our own ****ing business.

We are constantly involved in other countries' affairs.

We need to focus on America, because right now, as it stands, the US has caused a lot of damage to the world. We've funded extremists who go out and commit genocide because it was a matter of "national security."


Follow up, please. Enlighten us.

[IHOPSkins]

I guess Obama is a bit sensitive about the "spread the wealth" thingy.....

Obama Camp Lashes Out at FOX News Over Coverage of 2001 Radio Interview

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/