About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox News' Gallagher falsely suggested Obama advocated "chang[ing] the mission of the Supreme Court"

October 27, 2008 8:11 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: On The Live Desk, Trace Gallagher falsely suggested that in 2001 comments about attempts to pursue "economic justice" through the court system, Sen. Barack Obama had advocated "chang[ing] the mission of the Supreme Court in some facet," a statement with which Bill Sammon agreed. Obama did not advocate changing the mission of the court; to the contrary, Obama said that "traged[y]" lies in the civil rights movement's overreliance on the courts to bring about political and economic justice, when the judicial system is not the appropriate vehicle to effect broad economic change.

69 Comments

On the October 27 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, co-host Trace Gallagher falsely suggested that in 2001 comments about attempts to pursue "economic justice" through the court system, Sen. Barack Obama had advocated "chang[ing] the mission of the Supreme Court in some facet," a statement with which Fox News Washington deputy managing editor Bill Sammon agreed. Gallagher's comments echoed a false headline posted by the Drudge Report earlier on October 27: "2001 Obama: Tragedy That 'Redistribution of Wealth' Not Pursued by Supreme Court." In fact, in the interview to which Gallagher was referring, Obama did not say that the mission of the Supreme Court should be changed. He also did not say, contrary to an assertion by the Drudge Report and by Fox News in on-screen text earlier in the day, documented by Media Matters for America, that it is a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court has not addressed wealth redistribution. To the contrary, as Media Matters for America noted, Obama said that the "traged[y]" lay in the civil rights movement's overreliance on the courts to bring about political and economic justice, when the judicial system is not the appropriate vehicle to effect broad economic change.

During the interview, Obama said:

And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements 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 redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that.

[...]

I'm not optimistic 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 very good at it, and politically, it's just -- it's very hard to 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 rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it.

From the October 27 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk:

OBAMA [video clip]: That's how we've always grown the American economy, from the bottom up. John McCain calls this socialism. I call it opportunity. And there is nothing more American than that.

MARTHA MacCALLUM (co-host): All right, your thoughts on -- you know, socialism has been one of the biggest words we've heard tossed around in the past couple of days, and in a second, I want to pull up a couple quotes that you found earlier in one of Barack Obama's books. And I want to do that for a very specific reason. But your thoughts on how they're both fighting and waging this war over the best way to solve this economic crisis, Bill.

SAMMON: Well, we talked a second ago about the sort of, you know, the eloquence, the relative eloquence of the two guys, and now we're talking about the substance. I think that's the one area where McCain has a shot, an outside shot, of maybe pulling off an upset. Because I think some of these substantive issues, such as, you know, higher taxes, are we going to head more towards a socialistic government, could play in McCain's favor.

It was interesting -- you just showed a quote there from Barack Obama talking about how, in his view, it's all about opportunity. And then I watched John McCain -- it was the same thing. They're taking this argument and twisting it to their own ends, both men. But I do think that when you start talking about "spread the wealth around," which is what Barack Obama said to Joe the Plumber, and now this new radio thing that came up today where he talks about redistributing the wealth, you know, those two things together are tantamount to socialism to conservatives. That's red meat. That'll fire up the conservative base, who had been a little bit dispirited. And then they might actually show up at the polls and do something here next week.

GALLAGHER: And not even just "spread the wealth," Bill, I mean, it's spread the wealth and then change the mission of the Supreme Court in some facet.

SAMMON: Well, yeah. And he starts talking about the Constitution. It's interesting that all of these things are coming out in the last week.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by eweston8542983 (October 27, 2008 8:41 pm ET)
         
      The new mission, pineapple pizza in its own timezone.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (October 27, 2008 8:44 pm ET)
         

      "changing the mission of the supreme court". Considering the supreme court doesn't have a "mission" as defined by faux, how does that work?

      Ever notice that the one news organization who is so blatantly biased and trying to influence the elections is also the same organization who claims the loudest that american news organizations are trying to influence the elections? I'm just curious why some kangaroo humping nazi thinks he has a right to tell americans how to vote.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (October 27, 2008 11:05 pm ET)
           

        Unearned authority can be a heady and addictive drug.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by djasper2761 (October 28, 2008 2:59 am ET)
             

          even it is the authority on BS. billybob' o'really came unhinged monday on his comedy tv show. His facade of the independent went up in smoke. bo is a miscreant. and faucks news is a hodge podge of BS. I need intervention so I can stop watching this clown and shyawn inshannity. I love train wrecks, what can I say.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by historygeek001 (October 29, 2008 4:32 pm ET)
               

            You have a stronger stomach than I do.  I can't watch if I've eaten that day.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (October 28, 2008 12:24 am ET)
           

        Snoop did you see the bit about BilldO demanding a correction from the WaPO for referring to him as a right wing pundit? What a wacky little fantasy world they're operating over there at Fox.

        I know O'Reilly does the shtick where he calls himself an "Independent" to make the bluehairs in his fan base think they're getting news, but can you believe he's starting to believe it to the point that he's asking other sources to play along?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (October 28, 2008 12:27 am ET)
             

          No shiite! Man, the talking point is delusional!

          Obama Pictures and McCain Pictures

          Report Abuse
          • Author by djasper2761 (October 28, 2008 3:01 am ET)
               

            he is a miscreant. He hates America.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (October 28, 2008 9:10 am ET)
                 

              he is a miscreant. He hates America.

              And he hated falafels.  And mo-fo iced tea......

              Report Abuse
              • Author by neon desert (October 28, 2008 9:41 am ET)
                   

                It's that type of mischaracterization on which you leftys rely to smear the hard-working pundits at Fakes News.

                O'Really doesn't hate iced tea - It was those that SERVE iced tea that he referred to as the em-effers.

                For the love of Oolong, stop the character assassination or you will lose us Camelliaphiles...

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 28, 2008 11:56 am ET)
                     

                  I think that whole argument falls into an Earl Grey area.

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by fmbanker87 (October 28, 2008 9:52 am ET)
           

        to whom are you referring

        Report Abuse
    • Author by zamfir273114 (October 27, 2008 11:09 pm ET)
         

      kangaroo humping nazi

      LOL!!!  I love that phrase :D

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Max Dharma (October 27, 2008 11:16 pm ET)
         

      We have Gov. Sarah Palin's clothes (a big deal to be sure), McCains lies about his injuries that prevent him from using a computer keyboard, and Obama being a socialist. Clearly the real story is Gov. Sarah Palin's clothes!

      "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."
      -- Barack Obama 2001 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

      http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1152160/barack_obamas_redistribution_of_wealth.html http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1151942/barack_obama_on_redistribution_of_wealth.html?cat=9 You loose.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (October 27, 2008 11:27 pm ET)
           

        Well, Mr. short term memory, I see you forgot all about Edward's $400 haircut, Palin's oil redistribution tax and weathervane mccain's ever changing position on - well, almost anything. Since we're just 10 days from the election, I'm curious if you can tell us when Songbird is gonna articulate just one platform for his plan to bring america out of the worst financial crisis since the last republican created great depression? Any ideas, maxipad?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Max Dharma (October 27, 2008 11:38 pm ET)
             

          That's right snoop, talk about everything except that your guys a socialist!

          Leave it to the liberals to pick a socialist candidate.
          Good job.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (October 27, 2008 11:41 pm ET)
               

            Why should I talk about something you can't prove when we can talk about the fact that your guy's a nazi?

            Y'all picked a real fine pair, geezer and dimwit. GREAT JOB!

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Max Dharma (October 27, 2008 11:45 pm ET)
                 

              Um.. I gave you a link to the interview.

              No spinning this snoop. His words, his voice, over and out.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (October 27, 2008 11:52 pm ET)
                   

                Nah, you gave me a link and then your interpretation.

                Nazism = fail, we just had 8 years of it. But hey, if it makes you feel better to call that landslide coming your way socialism, go for it. Bottom line is an american referendum has had more than enough of reich wing republican nazism. Obama is about to get the majority of both the popular vote and the electoral vote, and contrary to your phony claims (care to supply a tax return to refute?) Obama is about to get a referendum that not even the stupidest of republicens (you excepted, of course) can deny. You may wanna trade your maxi pads in for depends...

                Report Abuse
              • Author by lapsedlawyer (October 27, 2008 11:52 pm ET)
                   

                Yes, and what he's saying is the courts are not the place to seek economic justice, tht it should be done through the legislative process.  Are the wingnuts collective ears failing them, or are they just that dishonest?

                Hmmmm, given their history, I think I've just answered my own question.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by steeve (October 27, 2008 11:56 pm ET)
               

            We've already done "socialism" in the 50s, 60s, and 90s, and it worked great every time.

            Careful redefining that term.  Water it down too much and socialism becomes a proven system.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Max Dharma (October 28, 2008 12:10 am ET)
                 

              You keep grasping at straws.

              "I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way." -- Barack Obama 2001 

              http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1151942/barack_obama_on_redistribution_of_wealth.html?cat=9

              Report Abuse
              • Author by steeve (October 28, 2008 1:42 am ET)
                   

                Did I hear you say that Clinton and Kennedy weren't socialists but Obama is?

                A 39% top tax rate and a 70% top tax rate isn't socialism, but 36% is?

                Let me save you some time and write your response:

                "Obama said 'major redistributive change'.  He's a socialist"

                Then I'll respond:  we've already done socialism.  It works.  What will Obama do differently than Clinton that has you worried?

                Then your response:

                "Obama said 'major redistributive change'.  He's a socialist"

                Then my response:  Bring on the socialism.  It's great.

                Then your response:

                "Obama said 'major redistributive change'.  He's a socialist"

                Isn't debate fun? 

                Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (October 28, 2008 12:10 am ET)
               

            Which industry has Barack Obama proposed complete government takeover and ownership of?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Max Dharma (October 28, 2008 12:12 am ET)
                 

              A meaningless reply.
              Read the articles and listen to the interview.

              You can attempt a redirect all you want, but we good the good now.

              "I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way." -- Barack Obama 2001 

              http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1151942/barack_obama_on_redistribution_of_wealth.html?cat=9

              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (October 28, 2008 12:13 am ET)
                   

                That's not proof of socialism.

                Which industry has Barack Obama proposed complete government takeover and ownership of?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Max Dharma (October 28, 2008 12:28 am ET)
                     

                  come on, that's a dumb comeback.

                  That's like saying "Did you find  The Communist Manifesto in his library? Huh? Huh?"

                  Try a real reply, like refuting the audio, or an explanation of what he *really means* (lol, like lapsedlawyer tried)

                  Nobody is fooled by your lame redirect.

                  Barack Obama bemoans the idea that the Constitution does not, "doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf."

                  http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1151942/barack_obama_on_redistribution_of_wealth.html?cat=9

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by snoopy (October 28, 2008 12:32 am ET)
                       

                    "like refuting the audio"...

                    done.

                    Get used to it, nazi pad...

                    Obama Pictures and McCain Pictures

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Max Dharma (October 28, 2008 12:36 am ET)
                         

                      All the pictures in the world aren't going to bail you out thie time snoop.

                       "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."

                      http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1151942/barack_obama_on_redistribution_of_wealth.html?cat=9

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by snoopy (October 28, 2008 12:49 am ET)
                           

                        I don't need no bailing out. I've got two jobs, the 2nd being a small business making less than $250K which will do that much better under obama's tax plan. You've got a phony plumber crack who, after lying about being a real plumber and proving he is mad today about a tax proposal because someday he hopes to get a license and be some overpaid plumber think you have a point to make with a spliced audio clip and some dumb link to associated content which is nothing more than an online publisher and distributor of user generated content.

                        Associated Content enables anyone with Internet access to publish their content on any topic and then distributes that content through its website and content partners.

                        Woohoo! You really hit the jackpot with that source, didn't you?

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by wookie (October 28, 2008 9:37 am ET)
                           

                        None of that says socialism. It could mean simply equal opportunity laws or lost wages.

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (October 28, 2008 3:03 pm ET)
                           

                        Let me guess, Max, this article (see link) is just "liberal bias"

                        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081028/ap_on_el_pr/fact_check_redistributing_wealth_1;_ylt=AlN8id05N8khR_KzzCyRl4ph24cA

                        Your quote is true and doesn't suggest anything but a fact.  Obama is correct is saying that the SC never ventured into the redistribution of wealth.  Where is any inclination as to how Obama would change things?  The question concerned the nature of the Warren court and why Obama didn't think it was radical.

                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by lapsedlawyer (October 28, 2008 3:50 am ET)
                       

                    I didn't try.  I succeeded. 

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (October 28, 2008 6:10 am ET)
                       

                    Listen to the entire show:

                    http://audio.wbez.org/Odyssey/CourtandCivilRights.mp3

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (October 28, 2008 8:59 am ET)
                       

                    Socialism is government ownership of industry, public ownership of property.  Words have meanings.  If he doesn't advocate ideas that are actually socialist, then he's not a socialist.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by pete592 (October 28, 2008 11:14 am ET)
                       

                    "come on, that's a dumb comeback.

                    That's like saying "Did you find  The Communist Manifesto in his library? Huh? Huh?"

                    That's not what I'm saying at all. 

                    I'm saying that you have yet to offer any compelling evidence that Obama is a socialist.  You have seven-year-old quotes taken out of context, but you have cited no socialist presidential policy proposals, and you have cited no past socialist legislative action on his part.  He's been in politics for over 20 years.  If Obama is truly a socialist, he surely would have started acting on his agenda by now, so there must be something you can point to.

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by tman418 (October 28, 2008 12:19 am ET)
                   

                Max Dharma,

                Obama was discussing Civil Rights here, and how the Courts did not do a good job distributing the benefits of the Civil Rights movement. "Redistributive change" is very vague here. He is actually right to an extent. Martin Luther King was the one who said that advocates of the Civil Rights movement need to go to elected legislators rather than the courts. Also, he is taking a conservative position when he says that the courts have no jurisdiction in this matter.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Max Dharma (October 28, 2008 12:30 am ET)
                     

                  Incorrect, reread this quote: "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."

                  http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1151942/barack_obama_on_redistribution_of_wealth.html?cat=9

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (October 28, 2008 2:13 am ET)
                       

                    You can keep posting it over and over.  You obviously don't have the intellect to understand what someone as intelligent as Obama has to say.  There's nothing in the conversation that cannotes socialism.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by tman418 (October 28, 2008 3:19 am ET)
                       

                    Only you and the far right have this complete obsession with one little sentence that was taken out of a discussion that had nothing to do with tax policy.

                    Also, Palin's support for a windfall profits oil tax is old news, but an interview Obama did in 2001 isn't?

                    How about John McCain's non support for Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003? Is that not socialist? What about his support for a bailout.

                    How about a flashback?

                    http://crooksandliars.com/silentpatriot/daily-show-flashback-mccain-socialis

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (October 28, 2008 6:10 am ET)
                       

                    Listen to the entire show:

                    http://audio.wbez.org/Odyssey/CourtandCivilRights.mp3

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 28, 2008 12:01 pm ET)
                       

                    You keep using that word, "socialist."

                    I do not think it means what you think it does.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by historygeek001 (October 30, 2008 4:28 pm ET)
                       

                    Just so you know, when you consistently claim something that is flagrantly untrue, you only make yourself look like an idiot.  Try examining the context next time, you might not look like an absolute loon.

                    Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (October 28, 2008 12:20 am ET)
               

            "That's right snoop, talk about everything except that your guys a socialist!"

            Palin, by her own definition, is a socialist.  An oil windfall profits tax goes back to the people of Alaska and funds their state's operations.  She has done nothing to repeal it.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Max Dharma (October 28, 2008 12:35 am ET)
                 

              Yeah yeah, old news dude.
              You call McCain a geezer and Palin a dimwit .. it doesn't matter, America will take them over a socialist any day of the week.

              It's time for you and your liberal friends to circle the wagons and start trying to spin this.. because it bad, really, really bad for Obama.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (October 28, 2008 12:51 am ET)
                   

                Apparently not this election. Geezer and Dimwit are directly responsible for the self destruction of the reich wing brand. Enjoy another 40 years in the desert...

                Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (October 28, 2008 9:05 am ET)
                   

                But as has been pointed out, Palin is a socialist by the new definition of the word.

                Since the GOP is in circular firing squad mode, and with Palin refusing to listen to her advisors, I'd say it's pretty clear they know they're going to lose.  Yelling "socialism" like an idiot isn't going to help.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (October 28, 2008 10:59 am ET)
                   

                " You call McCain a geezer and Palin a dimwit"

                Can you quote me?  Provide a link, please.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 28, 2008 12:03 pm ET)
                   

                You call McCain a geezer and Palin a dimwit .. it doesn't matter, America will take them over a socialist any day of the week.

                That's probably correct, but since Obama is not a Socialist by any definition of the term, the American people will take him over a geezer and a dimwit every day of the week.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (October 28, 2008 10:42 am ET)
               

            That's right snoop, talk about everything except that your guys a socialist!

            Leave it to the liberals to pick a socialist candidate.
            Good job.

            This comment proves one thing to me, Max - your side has NOTHING!!!!  You have to resort to lies about Barack Obama being a socialist because rather than give reasons for people to vote FOR your candidate, all you can do is give reasons to vote AGAINST ours.

            Enjoy digging out after next week's Democratic landslide!!!

            OBAMA '08

            Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (October 28, 2008 1:43 am ET)
         
      Max Headroom, I have two questions: Isn't Social Security also "Socialism" as you apparently define it? If so, shouldn't you encourage your candidate to come out more forcefully against it? There's still time... Grampy/Twit could swing through Florida on an anti-Social Security Blitz. Isn't it time we stopped redistributing all that wealth from young workers into the pockets of those shiftless old people?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (October 28, 2008 2:15 am ET)
           

        Brilliant.  The punk won't respond.  He only knows how to paste the same discredited bullcrap over and over again.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (October 28, 2008 7:54 am ET)
             

          Isn't is Socialism as well, if you give the rich people more money from the taxes paid into the country? I'm just saying. It does actually work both ways.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (October 28, 2008 8:48 pm ET)
               

            True.  The only way to completely discard socialism is to not only get rid of a progressive income tax, but a flat tax as well.  If there's a bill due to every American, shouldn't that bill be the exactly the same no matter what you make?  That's taking the Con logic to its natural conclusion.  It comes down to this: The country has bills to pay.  In order to pay those bills, you have to get the money from where it exists.  Taxing lower income people won't do it.  So, we are essentially arguing a who bears the burden and whether the burden should be shifted towards those most in position to bear it, or shifted downward to those it would hurt the most.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by right-winger (October 28, 2008 10:10 am ET)
         

      THIS IS WHY OBAMA WILL LOSE!!! THESE ARE SOME BRAIN DEAD PEOPLE WHO WATCH FOX NEWS. FOX NEWS IS A JOKE AND FOR PEOPLE TO SAY THEY WATCH THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE FAIR AND BLANCE THEY ARE A JOKE TOO. FOX, HANNITY, ORIELY, RUSH, ROVE, RNC AND PEOPLE WHO WATCH AND LISTEN TO THEM SHOULD GO LIVE IN CUBA BECAUSE WHAT THEY PUT OUT ON THERE AIRWAYS IS THE SAME AS IN CUBA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (October 28, 2008 10:43 am ET)
           

        Right-Winger -

        Let the nice man in the white coat give you your medicine, turn off the computer, and go take your nap.  OK?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 28, 2008 12:05 pm ET)
           

        WebTV won't let you post in lower case, will it?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by reedkim8082 (October 28, 2008 4:32 pm ET)
         

      If you listen to the whole clip, it's obviously a law professor discussing the theories of Constitutional law.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.