On October 27, numerous conservative radio hosts echoed thefalse claim, ϊ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810270008f=h_latest">originating on theDrudge Report, that in a January 18, 2001,WBEZ Chicago Public Radio ϊ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp">interview, Sen.Barack Obama said he regretted that the Supreme Court has not pursued wealthredistribution. Minneapolis radio hostChris Baker distorted Obama's 2001 remarks by claiming that he said"we gotta have economic justice and the Supreme Court ought to weigh inon redistributing wealth." Baker added: "Yeah, it's too badyou kind of stuck with the Constitution as it was. It's a tragedy thatredistribution of wealth was not pursued by the Supreme Court. Can you believethat" In fact, Obama did not say, "It's a tragedy thatredistribution of wealth was not pursued by the Supreme Court," orindicate, as Baker later claimed, that Obama "wants to use the SupremeCourt to reinterpret the Constitution in order to force the redistribution ofwealth." Rather, as ώm>Media Matters forAmerica has ϊ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810270008f=h_latest">noted, the "tragedy" Obamaidentified during the interview was that the civil rights movement �meso court-focused" in trying to bring about political and economic justice.Later in the interview, Obama added:ϋlockquote>You know, maybe I'm showing my biashere as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm notoptimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.You know, the institution just isn't structured that way. ... You know, thecourt's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just -- it's very hardto 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 rationalefor bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as apractical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it.Several other radio hosts also falsely claimed that Obamasaid during the 2001 interview that courts should redistribute wealth:Sean Hannity: On the October 27 edition of his nationallysyndicated radio show, Sean Hannity, referring to the 2001 interview, falselyclaimed that "Obama actually believes the Constitution is defectivebecause it doesn't allow judges to redistribute wealth." He went onto claim that "if he becomes president, Obama wants the Supreme Courtand other federal courts to literally have the power to spread the wealtharound and redistribute the wealth. Those are his words, his voice."Mark Levin: Mark Levin falsely asserted that "what the Supreme Court should have done fromObama's point of view was impose socialism from the bench." He alsoclaimed that Obama and Harvard Law Schoolprofessor Cass Sunstein are "promoting" an interpretation of the14th Amendment that it should ⊾ used ... to compel as amatter of constitutional law, the socialist agenda. In other words,constitutionalize redistribution of wealth." Levin then calledObama's position on the Constitution Ȫ radical point of view"and Ȫ foreign approach to the rule of law."Jim Quinn: On the October 27 broadcast of ώm>ώm>The War Room with Quinn ɪmp; Rose,co-host Jim Quinn said, "Here's what was wrong with the civilrights movement, according to Barack Obama: The Supreme Court never got intothe area of redistribution of the wealth." He added, ȭo you wantto have a judge tell you how much you can make, and how much of yourproductivity goes to another man who may have done nothing You want the courtto decide that And I'm telling you, this guy is gonna make one, two,three -- maybe -- appointments to the Supreme Court, and they're gonna beexactly those kinds of judges. Hold onto your wallet, kids." Quinn alsosaid, " He just got done telling you that the Constitution's onlyhalf-done. He needs to write the other half -- you know, the other half wherewe decide how much we take from you and give to that guy down thestreet."Michael Savage: On the October 27 broadcast of his nationallysyndicated radio show, Michael Savage also misrepresented Obama'scomments, falsely claiming that in the interview, Obama "says thatone of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the courts did notmove for redistributive change."On the October 27 broadcast of KSFO's ώm>The Lee Rodgers Show, host Brian Sussmandescribed Obama's comments as "talking about using the courts forredistributional change." Sussman then played a clip of the portion ofthe January 18, 2001, WBEZ interview in which Obama referred to"theoretical justifications" for ȫringing about economicchange through the courts." Sussman then commented: ȭid you hearthat Bringing about economic change through the courts That's judicialactivism on steroids." But Sussman did not air what Obama said just priorto referencing the "theoretical justifications" -- "it's veryhard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard" -- or what hesaid just afterward: "I think that, as a practical matter, ourinstitutions just are poorly equipped to do it." From Obama's 2001interview:ϋlockquote>ϋlockquote>You know, maybe I'm showing my biashere as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm notoptimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.You know, the institution just isn't structured that way....You know, the court's just not verygood at it, and politically, it's just -- it's very hard to legitimize opinionsfrom the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that, although, you cancraft 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 abouteconomic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, ourinstitutions just are poorly equipped to do it.Later in the broadcast, Sussman introduced the same cropped clip of Obama's remarks by saying:"Now, now, here's how he talks -- this is the -- this is the onethat just kills him. Using the courts for that redistributional change. Thatwould be, you know, the Supreme Court becoming the judicial activists that somany libbies want them to be." The Chris Baker Show: ϋlockquote><p㺺KER: Now here is Barack Obama in✁ as a state senator talking about redistributing wealth. OBAMA clip: The Supreme Courtnever ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basicissues 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 bythe founding fathers in the Constitution.<p㺺KER: Yeah, it's too bad youkind of stuck with the Constitution as it was. It's a tragedy thatredistribution of wealth was not pursued by the Supreme Court. Can you believethat Now, Joe:begin clip ϋlockquote><p㺺RBARA WEST WFTV Orlando newsanchor: How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread thewealth around SEN. JOE BIDEN D-DE: Are youjoking Is this a joke WEST: No.WEST: That's a question.<pϫIDEN: He is not spreading thewealth around. He's talking about giving the middle class --end clip<p㺺KER: Yeah. Thanks a lot. Thanksfor that, Joe. Nice job. All right, so there you go, it's out. Nowwe're gonna have to have that discussion today. Because I meanthat's -- that's pretty clear. And I think that once we get intothis, there's going to be a lot of people that are going to owe MicheleBachmann an apology. ...<p㺺KER: Enjoy this beautiful piece ofaudio. From 2001, Chicago Public Radio, where then-state Senator Barack Obammywas talking about using the power of the court, using the power of thegovernment, to seize your money, and give it to someone else is what he callssome type of economic justice. Let's listen to some of these cuts rightnow. Now they're a bit long, so bear with us, but you really shouldlisten to this if you have not heard it yet, which I hope you have. But if youhaven't, here it is:OBAMA clip: The Supreme Courtnever ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of morebasic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And, to thatextent, 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 bythe founding fathers in the Constitution.<p㺺KER: Wow. So they stuck with thefounding fathers too much apparently. Now that's a little freaky and,I'm sorry, to me, a little frightening, when a guy who says he wants to usethe Supreme Court to reinterpret the Constitution in order to force theredistribution of wealth. ...<p㺺KER: 651-989-5855, Chris Bakerradio program. We'll continue with this, the Barack Obama in-your-facehotline is now wide open again. 952-544-6756. All right. So, Michele Bachmannbasically -- and these are my words, not hers -- made reference toredistributing wealth as an anti-American value. I agree. Now those are mywords, but that's what I got from her comment, and she has taken heat. Butwhen a guy sits here and says in a 2001 interview, we gotta have economicjustice and the Supreme Court ought to weigh in on redistributing wealth, Idon't know. Sounds to me like Michele Bachmann's right. ...<p㺺KER: Look, I'm surehe's a great guy, but, I mean, I can't go for this redistributionof wealth nonsense. I mean this is crazy. This is what I don't get. Nowif he's your guy, sir, he's your guy, OK. And --<p㻊LLER: Well, yeah, I mean,honestly, I just have -- I'm tired of the message that the RepublicanParty has put out, and I think this country does need a different direction,and I don't believe --<p㺺KER: But do we need more freedomor less freedom<p㻊LLER: I think we need morefreedom, but I don't -- I think that this is just a scare tactic, youknow it's just -- <p㺺KER: Numbers don't lie, sir--<p㻊LLER: Socialism, communism --it's just a message that you guys are putting out all day long -- <p㺺KER: Yeah, but see, no one cantell me where I'm wrong. Here's a guy who wants to use the power ofthe court to redistribute wealth, he said so himself. I mean that -- youcan't deny that. <p㻊LLER: You're saying activistSupreme Court or maybe -- so having the Supreme Court decide an election,that's not wrong either <p㺺KER: Well, eventually you had togo to the court to stop the - well, now we're getting into 2000. Bythe way, every single media-sponsored recount showed the same results. So,let's not distract. All I'm saying, sir, is that here's a guywho has a history of voting against the Second Amendment, even voted toprosecute a man for defending himself in his own home, who talks aboutredistributing wealth. I mean, that's spooky. The Sean Hannity Show: ϋlockquote>HANNITY: There's actually aword for this, it's called welfare. And socialism is welfare. And Idon't care how Obama and his supporters deny this or spin this and the --believe me, that's what they're out there doing now that this hasbecome exposed. But Obama is a socialist, and as he says it repeatedly. OBAMA audio clip: I think thatwhen you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.HANNITY: And he wants toredistribute your wealth, and those are his words. And there's one otherthing in this 2001 audio you need to focus on. Obama actually believes theConstitution is defective because it doesn't allow judges to redistributewealth. Now why is that important Because he is going to potentially appointtwo or three Supreme Court justices. So, if he becomes president, he wants theSupreme Court and other federal courts to literally have the power to spreadthe wealth around and redistribute the wealth. Those are his words, his voice.And that means Obama wants to appoint radical, activist lawyers to the SupremeCourt and other courts where you can't throw them out -- in other words,lifetime positions. And they'll use that position to advance hissocialist agenda. That would completely and utterly not only disregard buttotally and completely undermine our Constitution. The Mark Levin Show: ϋlockquote>LEVIN: Now, this thing aboutredistributive change, that the -- that the Warren court wasn't all that radical,what he is saying is, what the court should have done from Obama's pointof view was impose socialism from the bench. Now what does he mean by that The14th Amendment, due process and equal-protection clauses. This is anew theory -- actually not that new, maybe a decade or two -- going around inour law schools, including University of Chicago, where Barack Obama'slegal adviser and close friend professor Cass Sunstein works, and who has ashot at going to the Supreme Court if Obama wins -- Cass Sunstein. And there'salso other professors. Bruce Ackerman at Yale and Robin West at Georgetown. What they are promoting is that the14th Amendment, the purpose of which - the purpose of whichwas to ensure that blacks would be treated as citizens once and for all -- thatthe 14th Amendment be used -- equal protection and due process -- tocompel, as a matter of constitutional law, the socialist agenda. In otherwords, constitutionalize redistribution of wealth. That's why Obama issaying, well the court wasn't really that radical. The most radical courtin American history, the Warrencourt, to Obama wasn't that radical at all. Think about that. The mostradical court in American history wasn't all that radical at allaccording to Obama. So, in this one statement, he talksabout a defective Constitution. He talks about what the Constitution should do,not what it does do. He talks about redistribution of wealth. Does that matterto any of you Any of you who haven't made up your mind or who aresupporting Obama, does that matter to you This is a radical point of view, faroutside the American mainstream. It is a foreign approach to the rule of law. Aforeign approach to the rule of law. The War Room with Quinn ɪmp; Rose:ϋlockquote>QUINN: OK, so Barack Obamadoesn't wanna take your wealth and give it to somebody else. Well, factsare stubborn things. As we return now to those thrilling days of yesteryear,public radio, Chicago, Illinois, 2001. Listen to every word:OBAMA clip: You know, if you lookat the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigationstrategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rightsin previously dispossessed peoples --QUINN: OK. So far, so good.OBAMA clip: -- so that I would nowhave the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter andorder in as long as I could pay for it, Iɽ be OK. QUINN: Now, of course, he fails tomention that he - blacks -- had the right to vote for three decades inthe South till his party, the Democrats, took over and instituted the Jim Crowlaws. There were no Republicans standing on the schoolhouse steps withfirehouses and dogs, folks. Anyway, he goes on. Now listen:OBAMA clip: But, the Supreme Courtnever ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of morebasic issues of political and economic justice in this --QUINN: The Supreme Court --here's what was wrong with the civil rights movement, according to BarackObama: The Supreme Court never got into the area of redistribution of thewealth. Let me roll it back here.OBAMA: -- lunch counter and order inas long as I could pay for it, Iɽ be OK. But, the Supreme Court neverventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth -- QUINN: Why in God's name wouldthey Do you want to have a judge tell you how much you can make, and how muchof your productivity goes to another man who may have done nothing You wantthe court to decide that And I'm telling you, this guy is gonna makeone, two, three -- maybe -- appointments to the Supreme Court, andthey're gonna be exactly those kinds of judges. Hold onto your wallet,kids.OBAMA: -- and sort of more basicissues of political and economic justice in this society.QUINN: Economic justice.That's another word for redistribution of the wealth by the state, whichis another word for communism.OBAMA: And, to that extent, asradical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical.QUINN: That's right. The Warren court wasn'tradical enough for Barack the radical. He wanted the court to decide who getswhat. OBAMA clip: It didn't breakfree from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers inthe Constitution --QUINN: Now wait a minute. Hisproblem with the court -- now here this, folks, before you make a horriblemistake. His problem with the Supreme Court was it didn't break free ofthe constraints placed upon it by the founding fathers' ConstitutionHello Am I -- am I taking a leak in the wind, here Is anybody listening OBAMA clip: -- at least asit's been interpreted. And Warrencourt interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is acharter 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'tsay what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf--QUINN: You know what this means,don't you He just got done saying that the Constitution is negative. Ittells the central government what it can't do to you, but itdoesn't address what the central government should do for you. Now, howdo we get around that, folks Let me tell you how you get around that. You getaround that with a constitutional convention; it's called a con-con. Andthere is legal foundation to do that. James Madison warned against it -- said,don't ever, ever have a constitutional convention, because even back thenhe understood that everybody with a grievance, and of course now in this dayand age, every group with a grievance would show up and want new rights thatplaced burdens on his fellow American. It would lead to the transfer of wealthfrom one person to another. That's why you never want a constitutionalconvention. He just got done telling you that the constitution's onlyhalf-done. He needs to write the other half -- you know, the other half wherewe decide how much we take from you and give to that guy down the street.OBAMA clip: -- and thathasn't shifted. And one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civilrights movement was, because the civil rights movements became socourt-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the politicaland community organizing activities on the ground -QUINN: Wait a minute, the court lostsight of community organizingOBAMA: -- that are able to puttogether the actual coalitions of power through which you --QUINN: The coalitions of power --group power -- the groups that will come to your door, dominant culture, andsay, "guess what, you screwed us, now we're gonna screw you."This is who you're about to elect. Are you crazy That was spoken likeHugo Chavez, except in quiet and measured tones. The Savage Nation: ϋlockquote>SAVAGE: Go all the way down the listto the liberals you have known. Where does Obama fit You think he's aunintelligible liberal Well, you listen to what he said in the speeches that were found overthe weekend, and you have to say, well did he outgrow it If he outgrew it, howcome he hasn't said he outgrew it He says that one of the tragedies ofthe civil rights movement was that the courts did not move for redistributivechange. He also said in Chicago Public Radio speech from 2001, he said that ourConstitution -- the U.S. Constitution -- reflects a blind spot of the foundingfathers -- it's a flaw of the country that continues to this day. Here isan arrogant -- an arrogant child raised by a white grandmother after beingditched by his mother and his two Muslim fathers. You want the naked truthI'm giving it to you. Morning Show: ϋlockquote>SUSSMAN: Now, maybe the best one iscoming up. And we'll do -- share this one for you in just a moment hereon Hot Talk 560, KSFO. Talking about using the courts for redistributionalchange. You've gotta hear this, on KSFO.OBAMA clip: Although you can crafttheoretical justifications for it legally - you know, I think you can --any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing abouteconomic change through the courts --SUSSMAN: Did you hear that Bringingabout economic change through the courts That's judicial activism onsteroids. Now, we've got more for you, and we're gonna play it, sostay tuned, here on Hot Talk 560, KSFO. Officer Vic, you got a traffic checkfor us...SUSSMAN: Now, listen to this. Here,he says: Hey, man. The courts can't do it all. We need to have communityorganizers, you know, like ACORN. Community organizers who are guilty of voterfraud and other agitation schemes. Shakedown artists. They need to do ourbidding for us. It's cut number two, Larry. Yeah, here we go.OBAMA clip: I think one of thetragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movementbecame so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of thepolitical and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to puttogether the actual coalitions of power through which you bring aboutredistributive change, and in some ways, we still suffer from that.SUSSMAN: Redistributive change.Redistribution of wealth, social justice, pitting one group against the other,leveling the playing field -- that's what he means by that. Now, now,here's how he talks -- this is the -- this is the one that just killshim. Using the courts for that redistributional change. That would be, youknow, the Supreme Court becoming the judicial activists that so many libbieswant them to be. Larry, go ahead and play it.OBAMA clip: Although you can crafttheoretical justifications for it legally -- you know I think you can -- anythree of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing abouteconomic change through the courts.SUSSMAN: A rationale.OFFICER VIC: A rationale forbringing about economic change through the courts. Any of the three of us herecould come up with that. Well.SUSSMAN: That's what thedude's talking about. That's what he wants. And that's whatwe're going to get, should he be elected. You just heard it here, on HotTalk 560, KSFO.