Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Indeed it does, especially given the following statement from Obama during the same interview...
You can't make a point by cherry picking words out of a dialog, this crap was brought up in 2008 and the conservative "interpretation" is just nonsense. This is what he said:
Quote:
OBAMA: But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of 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 Warren court interpreted it 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 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 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. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that.
It's disappointing that you would try to once again perpetrate the myth that what he said means anything more than it does on face value which is: "Obama was explaining that the Supreme Court under Earl Warren had maintained the historical trend of interpreting the Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties." Such an interpretation views the Constitution as a document which, as Obama explained, "says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you" In fact, Obama did not say, "It's a tragedy that redistribution of wealth was not pursued by the Supreme Court," or indicate, as that Obama "wants to use the Supreme Court to reinterpret the Constitution in order to force the redistribution of wealth." Rather, 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.
I heard a name to watch is Sri Srinivasan who has previously been approved to be a DC federal appeals judge in 2013. Srinivasan is a moderate who has favorable views from conservatives including Cruz. Should he be blocked, you have a case of the Republicans being obstructionists.
Perhaps the most touching story is that Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were best friends in spite of being on the opposite side of many decisions. What a shame that is not more prevalent in Washington.
That would make it look terrible if he was put up for the nomination and blocked. How could he be "fine" three years ago but not anymore even with only a few seats switching.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
