Via Stop the ACLU, here is Obama in his own words in 2001, giving up on the courts as a mechanism for radical change and suggesting a political approach instead:
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 tendancy 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.
This man thought the Warren Court wasn’t radical enough. Wow.
It was, and remains, intellectual fashion in much of academic America to dress hard-core radicalism in verbiage.
The erudition of the opinions Obama expressed do not make them any less radical.
Just remember, if he wins, Obama will be appointing some Supreme Court justices…
…and pushing for “fairness” as not just a political goal, but as the primary substantive basis for constitutional jurisprudence.
Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES Tonight on “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News, Donald Trump was the first guest, and at the beginning of his segment, Bill lightheartedly and briefly touched on EffGate. During the bantering exchange, Trump repeatedly denied that he used the actual word. However, since it was on video, this claim is verifiable. As they say in the business, let’s go | Read More »
Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES It seems Donald Trump constantly re-tweeting white nationalists on Twitter has paid off. A group of white supremacists has formed a Super PAC and they are supporting Trump. Isn’t that lovely? From CNN: New Hampshire voters may be stunned to hear the latest robocall asking for their vote; it’s from white nationalists with a simple, disturbing message. “We don’t | Read More »
Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES New Orleans has a habit, it seems, of being ignored by the press. At least, ignored when it comes to mass shootings. Or this case, attempted mass shooting. You may remember that, back in November, there was a mass shooting in the city which received virtually no national press. Now we have a story where not only did someone | Read More »
Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES Hillary Clinton is the ultimate Washington DC insider. She has been there for over 20 years. She was a first lady. Then she was a Senator. Then she ran for President. Then she was a lousy secretary of state. Then she went and made tens of millions of dollars giving speeches thanks in large part to her status as | Read More »
Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES With Iowa in the rearview and New Hampshire just around the corner, more and more people are lining up to take official sides, and Rubio is starting to run away with the endorsement game, for whatever that is worth. FiveThirtyEight’s endorsement tracker gives Rubio a clear edge over the rest of the field, as he is pulling away from | Read More »