Stallion Cornell's Moist Board

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, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. 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. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is 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, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy 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.

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.

He is saying that he is upset by its lack of radicalism. Most consider the Warren court radical. He doesn't.

It reads to me that he doesn't like that the Constitution won't allow him to do the things he wants to do "to you".

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 wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential
constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as
it’s 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 can’t do to you, it
says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the
federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

The highlighted part at the end lamenting that the Constitution didn't say what government should do for you. Doesn't let him bring about redistibutive change. Ummmm....communism.

...one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy 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.

Businesses will either raise prices or lay off employees in order to cover the big increase in taxes.

You say Negative Liberties, I say protection from Tyranny.

That is the OPPOSITE of what he is saying. Read the final portion again----





"The civil rights movement became so court focused...there was a tendency to lose track of... activites on the ground" i.e., it is a TRAGEDY-- his word-- that the Civil Rights Community began to expect the Government to step in & fix everything, rather than try to institute changes to help themselves via the private sector. "In some ways we [i]still suffer from that"[/i]--- i.e. the Community still expects Government to step in, and it should NOT.


The advice he's giving is that the Civil rights movement should STOP expecting the Courts to step in & offer up, ahem, 'reparations'-- but instead make their OWN reparations by building a more successful, influential & wealthy Community in the private sector-- to COMPETE in the private sector.

That is the straight Conservative viewpoint, is it not? Less Government intervention, so people can work & achieve their own success, ON THEIR OWN, and then let them keep the wealth, power & influence that comes with their success?