[Vision2020] Politics of Ignorance and Denial

[No Weatherman]

Ms. Lund:

The good news is that the thought of Obama's Communism bothers you.

The bad news is that that thought has sent you into denial.

You state:

"So Obama was arguing that the Constitution protects negative
liberties and that the civil rights movement was too court-focused to
make any difference in addressing income inequality, as opposed to
formal constitutional rights. So it seems to me that this statement is
actually a conservative one about the limits of judicial activism."

You're wrong, however, because Obama stated that the Warren Court was
not radical because it did not venture into the realm of the issue of
redistribution of wealth — it didn't break free from the founding
fathers' restraints, which was Obama's implied definition of
"radical."

He enlarged on this point, saying, "but I'm not optimistic about
bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The
institution just isn't structured that way."

The implication is clear that Obama wants redistributive change and
he's not optimistic this can be achieved through the courts.

Things will be different if he gets to make SCOTUS appointments.

Here's transcript:

Obama: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the
civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the courts, I
think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously
dispossessed peoples — so that I would now have the right to vote, I
would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as
I was able to pay for it I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never
ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic
issues of political and economic justice in this society. And 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 it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court
interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a
charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to
you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't
say what the federal government or the state government must do on
your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. And one of the, I think, the
tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights
movement 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 to bring about redistributive change. And in some
ways we still suffer from that. . . .

Karen (caller): Hi, the gentleman made the point that the Warren Court
wasn't terribly radical with economic changes. My question is it too
late for that kind of reparative work economically, and is that the
appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?

Host: You mean the courts?

Karen: The courts, or would it be legislation at this point?

Obama: You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as
well as a law professor, but I'm not optimistic about bringing about
major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just
isn't structured that way. . . .

You look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era the
court, for example, was willing to, for example, order changes that
cost money to local school districts, and 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,
you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process
that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court's just not very good at it, and politically it's very hard
to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I
think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it
legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up
with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the
courts. . . .
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-redistributionist-obsession/