OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 19 (permalink) Old 10-27-2008, 12:52 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT

Obambi really has the US Constitution all wrong. Instead of protecting the people from government, he thinks the government should be telling the people what to do--and he plans to appoint justices that will support and promote redistribution of wealth in America. This country will be in BIG TROUBLE if he ever gets elected! This guy is so damn scary that it takes my breath away... This is serious shit, and the Kookberger's don't seem to get it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 19 (permalink) Old 10-27-2008, 12:57 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mzsmbs's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1972 Mercedes 250 (/8) W114/M130
Location: on a high bank of a creek
Posts: 7,296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
DUDE ARE YOU THAT CLUELESS? SHRUBCO MADE THE MOVE TOWARDS SOCIALISM LIKE NO OTHER PREZ.



in political asylum
mzsmbs is offline  
post #3 of 19 (permalink) Old 10-27-2008, 01:07 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
OBAMA SAYS CONSTITUTION DEEP FLAW CONTINUES TODAY

THE OBAMA VAULTS: Constitution 'reflected fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day'...

YouTube - OBAMA SAYS CONSTITUTION DEEP FLAW CONTINUES TODAY

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #4 of 19 (permalink) Old 10-27-2008, 01:15 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
[QUOTE=Jayhawk;3128332]Obambi really has the US Constitution all wrong. Instead of protecting the people from government, he thinks the government should be telling the people what to do--........QUOTE]

Like telling

Woman they have to bear children they do not want?

Homosexuals that they cannot have their life partners involved in any legal matters?

Thanks, I think Obama has that covered for me.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #5 of 19 (permalink) Old 10-27-2008, 01:15 PM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 1969-280s, 2000 SL500, 1981 300D, 1980 450SL
Location: N.J. USA
Posts: 3,784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
government should be telling the people what to do--and he plans to appoint justices that will support and promote redistribution of wealth in America

all wealth is redistributed. period.
so, what's the problem here?
maybe a redistribution that you don't like?
I'll agree that you might be upset over paying 3% more, but I think you're greedy.

The government has been telling us what to do since it's inception.
so, what's the problem here?
again.. maybe it's the type of "telling" that you don't like.
lets see what you have to say if McSame gets in and the economy collapses even more.
Since he's got his finger on the pulse of the economy.

Mc Cain: 9am "the economy is strong"
11am " we are in a crisis, the economy is cratering"

nice guy, but not someone I'd trust with my piggy bank.
theonlybiker111 is offline  
post #6 of 19 (permalink) Old 10-27-2008, 01:24 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Hmm.... a negative news report, pushed by Drudge, and then blazoned on Fox News screens as a "news report", only a week before a national election. I wonder if it is a truthful, fair and balanced news report? Not a fucking chance:



Echoing Drudge, Fox News flat wrong about Obama's comments on Supreme Court

Media Matters

Summary: On-screen text on Fox News echoed the Drudge Report in falsely claiming that Sen. Barack Obama said it is a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court has not addressed wealth redistribution. In fact, the "tragedy" Obama identified during the interview was in what he said was the civil rights movement's overreliance on the courts to pursue political and economic justice.


On October 27, the Drudge Report featured the following false headline: "2001 Obama: Tragedy that 'Redistribution of Wealth' not Pursued by Supreme Court." Later that morning, Fox News' America's Newsroom echoed the Drudge Report with a false on-screen graphic that read "Obama: 'A tragedy' Supreme Court hasn't addressed wealth redistribution."


In fact, as the YouTube audio that the Drudge Report headline linked to demonstrates, during a 2001 interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ, Sen. Barack Obama did not say it is a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court has not addressed wealth redistribution. Contrary to what the Drudge Report and Fox News asserted, 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. Obama stated: "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."

During the 2001 WBEZ interview, Obama went on to state: "You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way." He later added, "You know, the court's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just -- 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 you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it."

Harvard Law School professor and Obama adviser Cass Sunstein also disputed that Obama was broadly discussing "redistributive change" during the 2001 interview. In an October 27 entry on his blog, posted after America's Newsroom aired, Politico senior political writer Ben Smith reported that Sunstein "argued that Obama is discussing redistribution in a relatively narrow legal context: The discussion in the 1970s of whether the Supreme Court would create the right to a social safety net -- to things like education and welfare. He also noted that in the interview, Obama appears to express support for the court's rejection of that line of argument, saying instead that the civil rights movement should aim for the same goals through legislative action." From Smith's post:

Obama's remarks came in a long interview on civil rights and Constitutional law with two other law professors on the Chicago public radio station WBEZ in 2001. (The full transcript is here, and audio is here.) Sunstein argued that Obama is discussing redistribution in a relatively narrow legal context: The discussion in the 1970s of whether the Supreme Court would create the right to a social safety net -- to things like education and welfare. He also noted that in the interview, Obama appears to express support for the court's rejection of that line of argument, saying instead that the civil rights movement should aim for the same goals through legislative action.

"What the critics are missing is that the term 'redistribution' didn't man in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer," Sunstein said. "What he's saying - this is the irony of it - he's basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals."

[...]

Sunstein argued that in the context of a long, legalistic interview, the words referred to the narrower forms of redistribution -- education, legal filing fees, legal representation, and other issues -- that had been discussed in the case Obama cited and in discussions around it.

From the October 27 Drudge Report:



From the October 27 edition of the 9 a.m. ET Fox News' America's Newsroom:



From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odyssey program, "The Court and Civil Rights":

OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never happened. I mean, I think that, you know, 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 peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. 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 [unintelligible] 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.

[...]

GRETCHEN HELFRICH (host): Let's talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you're on Chicago Public Radio.

CALLER: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical. My question is 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?

HELFRICH: You mean the court?

CALLER: 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, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way.

You know, you just said -- look at very rare examples wherein, during the desegregation era, the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to a local school district. 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.

You know, the court's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just -- 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 you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it.

SUSAN BANDES (DePaul University law professor): I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I think it also depends on -- much of the time what we see the court doing is ratifying the status quo, and, in fact, the court makes redistributive decisions or distributive decisions all the time --

OBAMA: Right.

BANDES: -- and it --

OBAMA: But, but, but --

BANDES: Let me give you an example, which is that the court considers whether it's OK to take a program, a federal Medicare program that provides -- you know, that recompenses people by insurance for every medical procedure they can have except abortion. And it upholds that --

OBAMA: Right.

BANDES: -- and says we can except abortion from that. Well, that's a decision about what kinds of subsidies we're willing to uphold and what we're not.

OBAMA: Although, typically, I mean, the court can certainly be more or less generous in interpreting actions and initiatives that are taken by the legislature, but in the example of, for example, funding of abortions or Medicare and Medicaid, the court's not initiating those funding streams. I mean, essentially what the court is saying is, at some point, OK, this is a legitimate prohibition or this is not. And I think those are very important battles that have to be fought, and they do have a distributive aspect to them.

—J.H.
Comments (12) - Join the Discussion
Embed this video:

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QuickTime



Latest Items
Echoing Drudge, Fox News on-screen text flat wrong about Obama's comments on Supreme Court (10/27/2008)


Altercation: Gotta find my corner of the sky ... (10/27/2008)


Wash. Post reported McConnell's claim about out-of-state contributions to challenger without noting he receives far more (10/27/2008)


Take Action!
Contact information:


Fox News Channel
FOX News Channel
1-888-369-4762
Comments@foxnews.com
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

The Drudge Report
DRUDGE REPORT 2009®
drudge@drudgereport.com

When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Issues / Media Tags HelpIssue:
Government and Elections
Sub-Issue:
2008 Elections
Topic:
Barack Obama
Show/Publication:
America's Newsroom
Network/Outlet:
Fox News Channel
The Drudge Report






Contact Us
Get in touch with us Jobs
We’re hiring Store
Purchase Media Matters products Font Size
/
Corrections
Corrections to our items © 2008 Media Matters for America.
All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Media Matters uses a taxonomy structure to help readers find information on various subjects. You can view all items by issue (the broadest category), view an issue's subissue, and even drill down to a particular topic. You can also look at items according to the related media personality, show/publication and network/publisher.
Social bookmarking sites allow you to save links to interesting items and share them with other users. Some, like Digg.com, also allow you to discuss these items and promote them to wider audiences by "digging" the ones that you like. To start using these services, simply register with the site in question.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #7 of 19 (permalink) Old 10-27-2008, 01:37 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by theonlybiker111 View Post
government should be telling the people what to do--and he plans to appoint justices that will support and promote redistribution of wealth in America

all wealth is redistributed. period.
so, what's the problem here?
.........
When wealth is redistributed in a free society it is based on the prerogative of the individual who earned it, not government dictates!

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #8 of 19 (permalink) Old 10-27-2008, 01:42 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove View Post
Hmm.... a negative news report, pushed by Drudge, and then blazoned on Fox News screens as a "news report", only a week before a national election. I wonder if it is a truthful, fair and balanced news report? Not a fucking chance:

.........
It was in Obambi's own words for God's sake. No one distorted anything! Except Obambi in his misinterpretation of the US Constitution!!

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #9 of 19 (permalink) Old 10-27-2008, 01:49 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk View Post
When wealth is redistributed in a free society it is based on the prerogative of the individual who earned it, not government dictates!
Is that right? Explain how that principle applies to Halliburton and Blackwell.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #10 of 19 (permalink) Old 10-27-2008, 01:56 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I have a question...

Hold one...

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    New Supreme court ruling on the death penalty ThrillKill Off-Topic 0 08-30-2008 11:50 PM
    2nd Amendment upheld by the Supreme Court! Bruce R. Off-Topic 112 07-01-2008 06:06 AM
    Proof of ID to vote upheld by Supreme Court 430 Off-Topic 20 04-28-2008 09:54 PM
    Mann Coulter doesn't like new Supreme Court nominee, so he must be OK FeelTheLove Off-Topic 9 07-20-2005 07:13 PM
    Very significant ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court GeeS Off-Topic 11 02-02-2005 10:24 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome