Take this quote, from an Obama advisor, in your link:

He thinks the civil rights movement misjudged the courts’ utility—they were good for providing for a right to vote and for black people to sit with white people at a lunch counter, to use Obama’s examples, but they’re not good for deciding who’s entitled to what government benefits or property rights. ”

Read that last part over. Carefully and slowly. Obama’s advisor is saying the same thing ST, and Sev, and I are saying. The courts are good for enforcing rights. But they aren’t good – or as Obama would put it, “not radical” – for confiscating property and turning it over to someone the left finds more deserving.

If you don’t see that when the Obama campaign talks about “wealth” and “property”, they mean earnings and possessions, not rights, your powers of comprehension are less than I believed.

I repeat: Obama’s trying to pretend that his redistributionist schemes are a logical extension of the 1960s civil rights movement. That’s a reprehensible, dishonest, and cynical misuse of the legacy of true civil rights heroes like Dr. King.

But it does pave the way for calling anyone who disagrees with his redistribution plans a racist (gee, there’s a surprise, huh?), and it gives those who blindly follow Obama a fig leaf for their irrational desire to punish anyone who works hard and succeeds.

Note: He deliberately points out that Obama is not talking about taxes.

As with most taxes, it’s not a question of whether they’ll be re-distributed, but how they’ll be re-distributed.

Besides, alchemist, your history is a little hazy. You say civil rights groups didn’t focus on the legislature. I seem to recall something called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that is considered the breakthrough point of that movement. It was followed quickly by laws such as the Voting Rights Act and others. The 1960’s civil rights movement won victories on both the judicial and legislative fronts. Obama acknowledges the judicial triumphs, but he’s unhappy because the Warren Court didn’t rip apart the economic foundations of the nation.

Bottom line: Obama is trying to steal the moral authority of a legitimate and worthy cause (the civil rights movement of the 60s) and link it to his own redistributionist agenda, as if one logically follows from the other. It doesn’t, and that’s the fallacy that he hopes you won’t detect.

Or, if you did detect it, he hopes that you’ll perform unbelievable mental contortions to pretend he’s saying something other than what he states in plain English. Clearly, he can always count on you for that.

The lengths you go to to wrap yourself up in pretzel logic to rationalize and defend the Obama are truly incredible, but hardly unusual unfortunately.

I believe Obama is talking about the redistribution of civil rights (except for the very last question) and saying the Civil Rights movements put all it’s eggs in the courts, and even though the courts ruled on their side, it was still difficult to approach these problems because local government scorned the court decision anyway. Therefore, reconciliation and desegregation took longer than necessary, and that prevented the redistribution of civil rights.

His conclusion: If civil rights groups IN THE 60’s had focused on the legislature, change may have come sooner (and some of the repercussions of desegregation might have smaller lingering effects).

Nowhere in this interview (at least that I have seen) does he talk about changes that should be made TODAY. And that’s where I believe this argument jumps the shark.

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

Meaning, the courts enforced civil rights. Fine.

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.

As I see it, this is a complaint. Remember, this is the pre-presidential campaign Obama, the one who ran on the ballot of the New Party and deliberately shortchanged Chicago schoolchildren by diverting more than $100 million to radical groups and causes, some of them selected by a certain unrepentant domestic terrorist, someone we’re not supposed to know or ask about. Obama isn’t defending the Warren court when he says it was “not radical” – he is criticizing it. The only difference between that Obama and the one we see today is the filter of a campaign organization that spins away every wealth-redistribution gaffe.

I think 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 coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Translation: since the courts won’t do wealth redistribution for us, we will take power (”put together the actual coalition of powers”) and seize people’s property by any means necessary (”political and community organizing”). He sees letting you keep what you earn as a bad thing (”we still suffer from that”) and as President, he plans to correct that mistake.

See? It’s really not difficult to understand. Unless, like alchemist, you have you eyes closed and your fingers in your ears.

you see it as a derivative of his modern mindset towards what the government should do (today).

Considering the fact that the interview is only 7 years old, and he is doing his damned best to quash it, I don’t know how you can interpret it any other way except for the fact that you want to ignore his other statements and actions.

I seriously doubt we will find out in January. I don’t even think that he will even come close to winning this election. The polls are completely biased, and the main stream news media is blinded by their bias and most people believe what they say. I just don’t see the win. – Lorica

I didn’t read it that way, I took it as him saying “Look, the warren court followed the constitution and decided correctly not to do these things. And it was a mistake for the civil rights movement to think the courts would solve this problem. Even the warren court wasn’t this radical”

At this point we just completely disagree on what is being discussed. I see it as primarily discussing court decisions and civil rights in the 60’s (you know, the central topic of the interview), you see it as a derivative of his modern mindset towards what the government should do (today).

I guess we’ll find out in January.

it didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constituion 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 40:43 says what the states cant do to you says what the federal govt cant do to you but it doesnt say what the federal govt or state govt mst do on your behalf and that hasnt shifted

Ok Alchemist, how can you interpret this as anything but a wish list?? A hoped for eventuality??? How can any Supreme Court “break free” from the essential constraints of the Founding Fathers??? And if it did how soon before the Congress intervenes, as only Congress can?? He is talking to about why the Warren Court did not get into a redistributive mindset. I am sorry Alchemist, but knowing what we know about the Barry, I am pretty certain that the way we are interpreting this, is exactly how he originally intended. He was in a group of like minded people, and he was discussing their ideas of what should/could have happened.

I ask you again Alchemist, how long are you going to make excuses for this man, even when the continued evidence is nipping at your nose??? I might be to harsh on him, but I am only interpreting his words based on things he has already said. You on the other hand seem to want to break everything down as an individual item, and ignore information already on hand, and I just don’t think that is a smart thing to do. – Lorica

i am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts you know the institution just isn’t structured that way.

What part of the above quote makes you think he doesn’t want redistributive change? If he had said “I’m not optimistic about bringing about major pedophilia through the courts” would you come to the conclusion he wanted to stop pedophilia?

Damn, alchemist, you are in the tank for him to the point of going out of your way to find reasons to rationalize away what he actually says. And unfortunately the US is full of people just like you who want to say a rattlesnake isn’t a poisonous viper and think that makes it so.