Yes, we can.

[Alex]

Yes, as for the first one surely you, scaeagles, acknowledge that the Consitution's handling of slavery was a moral lapse (if not, at the time, a political one) reflecting a blind spot of the founding fathers and issues of race that reverberate to this day?

As for the second one, did you actually listen to it? You say:

He thinks the Warren court should have been able to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" in regards to what he refers to as "economic justice".

He never expressed that thought in the video. He said quite clearly why the courts didn't do it, and why they aren't designed to do it. And therefore, as radical as the Warren Court has come to be viewed, it really wasn't so radical that it moved outside the framework within which the court has historically functioned.

He also never says he wants redistribution of wealth in that presentation, despite what the helpful big text says. He does answer whether such efforts are best pursued in the legislative or judicial branches. He may very well want them (though nothing defines exactly what would be pursued in such economic solutions so I might very well agree with them) but the video does not present that case.

If we assume you actually listened to the video, then the fact that he does not say what you say he did must simply be a lie on your part intending to deceive those who can't be bothered to actually listen to it.

If we assume you didn't actually listen to the video, then it would appear you are just once again blindly passing along whatever is fed to you at the Drudge Report and supporting blogs.

So, are you a liar or a dupe? Or do you have a third option I'm not seeing at the moment?