Obama: Courts Should Redistribute Wealth

Whether it's Obama claiming that the Warren Court was much less “radical” than people have characterized it or bemoaning the Supreme Court’s “never [venturing] into the issues of redistribution of wealth,” this 2001 interview with the popular candidate should seal the case for his activist judicial philosophy. No matter how erudite and eloquent, Obama expresses some pretty radical views here.

Obama insinuates that the Constitution is out-of-touch, for it is only

“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 doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”

Jeff Goldstein concisely summarizes the ramifications for an impending Obama presidency:

“‘In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the ‘constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution’ — and in so doing, achieve ‘social justice’ through ‘redistributive change.’”

And Steve Schippert warns that

“the prospects of an Obama presidency and a large [D]emocrat majority that leans far left in both the House and the Senate will set the stage for "legislative" imposition of the transfer of wealth to those who he views have a civil right to that money.

That this is wholly counter to the Constitution is of no matter. Congress will pass 'transformational' tax and health care legislation, Obama will sign it into Law, and the only thing standing between it and us is the Supreme Court, which could strike down the laws as un-Constitutional. But what will that Supreme Court look like after one or two Obama appointments? Will it have the will to do so, or will enough justices 'interpret' ('invent' is a more appropriate term) the Constitution in the manner Obama does?”

Socialism here we come.