[T]he supreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the warren court it wasnt that radical ... it didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constituion at least as it has been interpreted and the warren court interpreted it generally in the same way that the constitution is a document of negative liberties
Since Obama is rejecting the idea of pursuing "redistributive change" through the courts, what difference does it make whether this change was narrow and procedural (Reich) or dramatic and substantive (Michelman)
But is he rejecting the idea? I read him as simply saying the Warren Court would not. It’s a pragmatic analysis of history, not a call to action in the future.
I don’t see any indication in this quote he thinks an Obama court shouldn’t or wouldn’t.
And I see plenty in other places that he would expect such action by justices he would name.