Crash Test Dummy
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: never never land
Context, Exegesis and Eisegesis
So I sat and listened to the infamous radio interview. It wasn't until the 40min mark that the YouTube excerpt was played. Their whole conversation was about the court system, civil liberties, state vs. federal regulation and how the Fed. SC was, in the past unwilling or unable to interfere in the local laws of States. And the SC's unsuccessful dealings when it came to income distribution policies.
The interview goes on to provide many examples of how, at times, the Fed SC attempted to involve itself with redistributive functions of wealth, THE OTHER guy gave his comment on the welfare system and how at one time, they attempted to make a rule that Welfare administrators had to have face to face with recipients instead of just cutting them off. Turns out the Fed. Court was unsuccessful in that because the funds was going to court costs instead of actual people. So, five years later, they changed the ruling.
Supposedly, the following quote Obama being a Socialist:
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as 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 has been interpreted.
And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, 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 state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.
And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that. "
If you take the time to sit and listen, rewind back, understand the conversation, you'll realize that the above quote isn't regret that the courts wern't radical. He just simply stating fact. The context supports it, his tone supports it. The other speakers comments BEFORE Obama's support it as well.
Here is where Obama used and therefore, defined, his use of the word "redistributive" (around the 30-35min mark)
"there is one other area where the civil rights area has changed and that is at the state level you now have state supreme cts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the warren court a classic example would be something like public education where after brown v board a major issue ends up being redistribtion how do we get more money into the schools and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity well the court in a case called san antonio v rodriguez in the early 70s basically slaps those kinds fo claims down and says you know what we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities with respect to schools thats not a race issue thats a wealth issue and something and we cant get into those
The infamous quote from the stupid clip YouTube was made around the 40min mark.
sigh........please bash, flame..........do your thizzle.
I'm just a poor negro