It wouldn’t be Ellis Washington if he weren’t getting something flamboyantly wrong, and Washington does just that in his March 22 WorldNetDaily column:
In a 2001 radio interview, Obama gave America a glimpse into the perverse mind of The Regime and what type of characteristics he considers in an ideal judge. Obama said, “… 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. …”
The most effective tactics liberal/progressives have used repeatedly to break free from the “essential constraints” of the Constitution was to enact the treason of the Progressive Revolution throughout every aspect of society via liberal activist judges and their anti-constitutional decisions. By appointing Sonia Sotomayor (2009) and Elena Kagan (2010) to the high court, Obama has openly shown his utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution, preferring evolutionary activist judges who legislate from the bench and share his tyrannous belief that the Warren Court (1953-69) didn’t go “far enough” in enshrining “redistributive change” (e.g., integrating Marxist/Alinsky socialist ideas in place of the rule of law into every area of society), thus effectively rendering the Constitution a dead letter.
As we documented years ago, Obama did not say the Warren Court didn’t go “far enough” in enshrining “redistributive change.” He said that because the Warren Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution,” that meant it wasn’t as radical as its critics have portrayed it.
If Washington fails so utterly at basic reading comprehension, no wonder he can’t find a tenure-track teaching job.