Obama Would Have the Supreme Court

Redistribute the Wealth in this Country

© O. R. Adams Jr., 2009


President Barack Obama's socialist views are unbelievably radical, particularly when it comes to the role of the United States Supreme Court.

Our Constitution provides for a separation of powers. Only our elected representatives are given the right to pass or change laws; and only the people and their representatives are given the right to enact or change a provision in our Constitution. Judges and Justices are given only the power to interpret what has been enacted by the people and their representatives.

Personal bias and political views should not enter into judicial decisions, and particularly in decisions of the United States Supreme Court on a provision of our Constitution. Yet the United States Supreme Court has done great damage to our Constitution by deciding what they think the meaning should be, based on their own political and personal biases, rather than giving it the meaning intended by those who enacted them. [1]

In the things Obama said when he was running for president, we see his lack of respect for our Constitution. He said at the Saddleback Church Forum that he would not have appointed justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. These two have a proven record of upholding the meaning of our Constitution according to the intention of those responsible for its provisions, instead of engaging in judicial legislation in violation of their solemn oaths.  Solemn oaths mean nothing to a person like Obama. Obama voted against the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. These are the only two justice appointments he has voted on as a senator. The reason he voted against them is because he expected them to support our Constitution according to the meaning and intention of the people of this country who enacted its various provisions, instead of changing the meaning to what the radical liberals want it to be. Both Roberts and Alito have disappointed Obama by upholding our Constitution, instead of changing it to personal political biases and social views of liberal justices.

Obama's own words show the kind of judicial appointments he would make: "We need somebody whoís got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what itís like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what itís like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And thatís the criteria by which Iím going to be selecting my judges."[2]  These criteria embody only the biases of the particular justice involved. They have nothing whatsoever to do with arriving at the meaning intended by the people and their representatives who enact a particular provision of our Constitution. Obama's criteria are the epitome of justices violating their oaths and changing our Constitution to their own personal views.

The President's socialistic views of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to others who have no right to it, by taxation and spending, are well known. Most merely attribute it to his democratic socialism views. But a deeper examination of this man's ideas disclose something that is far more dangerous and destructive. He would have the United States Supreme Court aid in his redistribution of wealth schemes. In a public radio interview in 2001, Obama revealed just how radical he is. A full transcript of this interview is attached as Appendix A at the end of this article.

In the radio interview, Obama explains that he did not think the Warren Court (when Earl Warren was Chief Justice) was very radical, because it did not engage in the "redistribution of wealth." Obama complained that the Warren Court had not been very good at inventing ways to redistribute the wealth, and admitted that it would be "hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard," but said that he thought that "you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally." And then the real bombshell is his last statement in the interview:

Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.

Such a "rationale" shows no respect whatsoever for our Constitution. It is completely contrary to our Bill of Rights which was intended to guard against our property and inherent rights being taken from us. It is contrary the rule of "we the people," which is the most basic thing in our Constitution. It is the rule of an imperial court.

This man is a real danger to our country and to our Constitution, and he is now in the process of selecting his first appointment to the United States Supreme Court.


[1] See the book, A Way To Save Our Constitution From Judges, under books on this website; and the articles, Saving Our Constitution From Judges, and Why We Are Losing Our God Given Rights, under Articles, on this website.

[2] FrontPage, http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F30D8AA9-FCC9-43D5-846A-77029E98235E


Appendix A

Obama On Redistribution


TRANSCRIPT: (2001 interview on Public Radio)

MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and weíre joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: 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 vest 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 and as long as I could pay for it Iíd be okay.
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 people tried to characterize the
Warren court, it wasnít that radical. It didnít break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as itís been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states canít do to you, it says what the federal government canít do to you, but it doesnít say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasnít shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement 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 redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that. (Emphasis added)

MODERATOR: Letís talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, youíre on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasnít terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place Ė the court Ė or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe Iím showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but Iím not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isnít structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The courtís just not very good at it and politically itís very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts. (Emphasis added.)

The above interview was referred to in the Drudge Report: http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/27/20081027_050908.htm

Which refers to the You Tube audio of the interview: