Obama's Judicial Philosophy Comports With Redistribution of Wealth

Yesterday's revelations about Sen. Barack Obama's legal philosophy relating to the redistribution of wealth should be a warning sign to anyone who thinks that Sen. Obama will not engage in a massive shift in how the government does business and sticks its nose into your personal business and affairs.

Obama clearly believes that the Warren Court was insufficiently radical for his tastes, and that experience may have soured him on the idea that the courts could be used to further his agenda of redistribution of wealth. Obama has been tied to that agenda for years, as audio interviews have repeatedly shown, although the media isn't willing to highlight that particular fact.

He's clearly intent upon fashioning the courts in his own image. It's a recurring theme Obama hits time and time again over the years. That's the prerogative of the President of the United States and clearly within his power. However, we should look far closer at what that entails than the media has been willing to do. Obama will likely appoint legal scholars and experts whose judicial philosophy meshes with his own, meaning that he's going to push for judges who see the idea of redistribution of wealth as their goal as well. The court system is supposed to run by the rule of law, and Obama's judicial philosophy would turn that on its ear:

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." Mr. Obama's emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

Obama's political leanings would institute radical changes in how courts decide on the law, and opens the door for all manner of chicanery that throws the rule of law out the window in favor of pushing for new and expanded Constitutional rights that aren't present in the Constitution. By establishing such new rights out of the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution, the rule of law gets thrown by the wayside.

Obama clearly doesn't consider the Constitution to be an ironclad document, but rather a living, breathing document that can and must be changed wholesale by activist judges who will find whatever it is they're looking to support by reading between the lines.

It allows the courts to legislate from the Bench, and considering that Democrats claim to be poised to solidify their majorities in Congress, a President Obama would be in a powerful position to ram through his corrosive agenda with all the means at his disposal. Obama's concerns that the courts are not the right forum to push through an economic justice agenda would fall by the wayside if the rest of the government; Congress and the Executive are wholly within the control of the Democratic party.

Obama's supporters in Congress are already considering the notion of a Second Bill of Rights, which would guarantee all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.

Consider that Obama is already moving the goalposts on his tax and spend agenda. Previously, he claimed that only those with incomes above $250,000 would be hit by tax increases. That has now become $200,000. Watch that level continue to drop as Obama searches for ways to pay for his tax and spend schemes, which are redistributive in nature - giving refundable tax credits to those who already pay no taxes.

Obama's social justice agenda, which is redistribution of wealth and socialism by its very terms, is not what the nation wants or needs.

Mickey Kaus seems to think that this isn't far from what Democrats have traditionally said, albeit in slightly different terms. Obama is far more audacious in what he's proposing, and Democrats in general are pushing for a leftward lurch in the American polity that I think Kaus will find himself greatly dismayed over what Obama seeks to impose.

UPDATE:
The media repeatedly has done the American public a grave disservice by failing to report on Obama's economic policies and history. As Ed Morrissey points out in his reporting on Obama's 1996 statements about redistribution of wealth above, all the evidence is there that Obama was pushing redistribution of wealth and socialist ideals. He said as much to the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America, who happened to endorse Obama for his run in the Illinois Legislature. The media could have reported on this, but chose not to. This information was available and accessible online, and yet the media chose not to highlight it.

Why haven't they? Would it reveal too many uncomfortable truths about Obama's real economic and social agenda? It most certainly would. From 1996:

One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama's campaign is "what does it take to create productive communities", not just consumptive communities. It is an issue that joins some of the best instincts of the conservatives with the better instincts of the left. He felt the state government has three constructive roles to play.

The first is "human capital development". By this he meant public education, welfare reform, and a "workforce preparation strategy". Public education requires equality in funding. It's not that money is the only solution to public education's problems but it's a start toward a solution. The current proposals for welfare reform are intended to eliminate welfare but it's also true that the status quo is not tenable. A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the "social wage" approach used by many social democratic labor parties. By "workforce preparation strategy", Barack Obama simply meant a coordinated, purposeful program of job training instead of the ad hoc, fragmented approach used by the State of Illinois today.

The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts.

Note too what Obama says about those in business and their ability to run companies. He clearly believes that the owners of businesses who make decisions to hire and fire and take salaries cannot be trusted to do so, and that the government should be the ones to impose "economic justice" on the situation.

That's socialism in a nutshell.