It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Sandra Day O'Connor Fears U.S. Dictatorship

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
If she was really that concerned she should have stated her concerns openly so that all can hear.


Nonsense....She was at a speaking engagement before a group of lawyers... Why would you expect her to reserve such comments for only a more broad and public audience?

Again, have you listened to the NPR report?

[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
You know, Muaddib, I barely read that article...I find the NPR account far more credible. Have you listened to it? Moreover, this was featured on MSNBC...Do you thin that if SDO had been misquoted in any egregious way that she would not publicly set the record straight?

[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]


We both know that if she would come out and made any statements negating this it would make even more conspiracy theories, and there will be people claiming she was made to retract her statement.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
We both know that if she would come out and made any statements negating this it would make even more conspiracy theories, and there will be people claiming she was made to retract her statement.


No, we don't both know that...

Moreover:

*coughs*






Justice Ginsburg reveals details of threat

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she and former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor have been the targets of death threats from the "irrational fringe" of society, people apparently spurred by Republican criticism of the high court.

Ginsburg revealed in a speech in South Africa last month that she and O'Connor were threatened a year ago by someone who called on the Internet for the immediate "patriotic" killing of the justices.

Security concerns among judges have been growing.

More...



BTW, READ that entire article....What it describes is pathetic....

[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Nonsense....She was at a speaking engagement before a group of lawyers... Why would you expect her to reserve such comments for only a more broad and public audience?


Nonsense? so you don't think that if someone in power has any concern and has proof that the administration is becoming a dictatorship that person shouldn't make her statements public?

Let's assume this is true. Have you asked yourself why she didn't want her statements public like it is mentioned in the transcripts? Could it be that she does have some concerns but she knew that people would take her comments out of context?



Originally posted by loam

Again, have you listened to the NPR report?

[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]


No, I read the transcripts of the alledged statements.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
No, I read the transcripts of the alledged statements.


It's a simple 3 min. report... Listen to it:

www.npr.org...

..then with the Ginsburg story above, tell me what you think...

[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Let me ask you something. So criticism of the high courts by some Republicans in power is making people in the fringes of society send death threats?....

Don't you think that criticism of the administration would also make people in the fringes of society want to retaliate against public officials, nomatter who they are?

I think it is a bit too easy and convinient to claim that the criticism of some officials is making people "in the fringes of society" want to make death threats to judges.

I do agree that probably some of the statements by some politicians do go over the line, but to claim this is the reason they are receiving death threats?

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
It's a simple 3 min. report... Listen to it:

www.npr.org...

..then with the Ginsburg story above, tell me what you think...
[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]


I heard the report, it is exactly the same to what is written in the transcripts.

What do you actually think is said in that report?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Let me ask you something. So criticism of the high courts by some Republicans in power is making people in the fringes of society send death threats?....


I think there is a big difference between "criticism" and "incitement". I'm quite confident I could produce several examples of irresponsible, specious statements made by "pseudo" conservatives in public office against the judiciary, but I assume based on your previous statements you'd question the legitimacy of those as well.


Originally posted by Muaddib
Don't you think that criticism of the administration would also make people in the fringes of society want to retaliate against public officials, nomatter who they are?


I'm quite sure that's the case. But it is an immutable fact that in the case of JUDGES, the desire has matured into real action. Where is there evidence that this is happening in similar scale to legislators or bureaucrats???



Originally posted by Muaddib
I think it is a bit too easy and convinient to claim that the criticism of some officials is making people "in the fringes of society" want to make death threats to judges.


Then contrary to what you posted earlier, you have already arrived at a conclusion on the issue.


Originally posted by Muaddib
I do agree that probably some of the statements by some politicians do go over the line, but to claim this is the reason they are receiving death threats?


When it becomes the political vogue to demonize an entire branch of government, I'd call that insane, anti-American and absolutely the cause of the sudden rise in judicial death threats.

History teaches much about how the Judiciary is eliminated on the road to tyranny. Why do you think we are so immune?


[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I heard the report, it is exactly the same to what is written in the transcripts.

What do you actually think is said in that report?


You questioned the credibility of the correspondent who reported on SDO's speech...

It happened to be Nina Totenberg. Here's her bio...

Nina Totenberg

Are you questioning her ability to have reported this right???
If so, on what grounds?




Totenberg has been honored seven times by the American Bar Association for continued excellence in legal reporting and has received a number of honorary degrees.



I'd say that isn't some snot nosed reporter... wouldn't you?


[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Sorry, missed this post...


Originally posted by Muaddib
Nonsense? so you don't think that if someone in power has any concern and has proof that the administration is becoming a dictatorship that person shouldn't make her statements public?


You mean her statements weren't public enough for you?
I'm sorry, but do you have any idea how "junior" your quote sounds??? There was a freakin' national reporter present. What did you expect? Should she have commandeered an satellite, ala-Micheal Jackson, and broadcast her concerns to all of humanity? :shk:


Originally posted by Muaddib
Let's assume this is true. Have you asked yourself why she didn't want her statements public like it is mentioned in the transcripts? Could it be that she does have some concerns but she knew that people would take her comments out of context?




Maybe I shouldn't have responded to these specific posts by you after all...They are so off the mark, I think just re-quoting them is rebuttal enough.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
I still notice that the merits of SDO's concerns have not really been addressed in a meaningful way in this thread.

I addressed her statements very early on in this thread. To recap, regarding strong-arming:
"How is it possible to strong-arm a lifelong appointee? I think David Souter proved that to be false."

Then I fell into the trap of responding to some personal attacks and got sidetracked.

I'd like to ask you a question. What instances were you referring to here?:

I'm quite sure that's the case. But it is an immutable fact that in the case of JUDGES, the desire has matured into real action.



[edit on 16-3-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   
NEWSFLASH; Ginsberg and Sandra are getting death threats, according to my local Fox channel.

It wont be long now before something untoward happens to them.

You want them to address their thoughts on tv?


Muaddib and Jsobecky, you deeply trouble me.
Two incredibly smart people who just absolutely refuse to see the truth.

It makes me sad.


Muaddib, for the love of God, you of all people know what COULD happen....

:shk: :shk:



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Is this what you are referring to, dg?

According to Ginsburg, someone in a Web site chat room wrote: "Okay commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment ... an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor have publicly stated that they use (foreign) laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases. This is a huge threat to our Republic and Constitutional freedom. ... If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week."
seattlepi.nwsource.com...


Read the article and you will see that the threat was made last year.

I think you owe Muaddib and me an explanation of your comment. The implications of your statement aren't too pretty. It borders on an accusation.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Jso,

Please dont play the victim. Its me, remember?
Me who takes whatever you have to dish out all the time, day or night.

I hadnt even seen that little blurb. I am referring to you still defending everything, and now making Sandra look as though she's gone
feeble.

Take it for what its worth at least once. This woman knows what she is talking about. She's not some nut case.

ps. If i totally misunderstood, and you agree with what she said, forgive me. Muaddib, he knows what i mean.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Someone call Fox and tell them to stop reporting old news!!!!!!!


Whats with the old breaking news?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   
What many fail to understand in their narrow minded views, is that their meaning of what a dictatorship is what they has seen by other totalitarian governments in other countries.

They can not understand that dictatorship can come in many ways, from suppression of information, the press and laws that controls or take away people's rights to get that information.

For many dictatorship is link to Hitler or Castro, so in Hitler their understanding of a dictatorship is going after a racial group and gas then in the chambers.

But also it can come in the way of secret camps in other countries to persecuted what the government sees as a treat to it's own power.

Occurs some will never link one and one together because after all their freedoms and liberties has never been infringed.

But they are sure getting controlled more and more.

Seizing private property from businesses, controlling what we believe to be our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and controlling what the people can access through the media as information in relation of the doings of our government not only when it comes to security but also when it comes to the wrong doings against the citizens of the country.

Listening to conversations that are not only limited to national security and then limiting what the people should know about the practices.

Even taking away people's land for development by private companies.

Dictatorship can come in many ways because what many fail to see is that is all about control.

Our government control everything we do and to what extend we are allowed to do it.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Marg, you're a very smart lady. I am coming from the fact that i actually LIVED in an oppressed communist country.

The signs are all the same. Any extreme is bad. First they love the leader, the promises, etc...then you see it all start to fall apart...before you know it, there it is. A dictatorship. Heck nobody is going to go (specially Bush & Co) on national tv and say.."Like it or not, this is now a dictatorship"

Dictatorships arent announced. They just are.

And MUADDIB, can you please verify that what i just said is true? You lived it yourself and you must know that the signs start pointing to a certain path and in the end, when one wakes up, its there.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
dg, sometimes you're all wet in your assumptions. I never said that SDO was a moonbat and that I disagreed with what she said. I disagree with so many others who say we're already there. And that is not what SDO said. She just warned us to look out for the slippery slope.

As for marg's brilliant observations
, it depends on how you look at an issue. She sees Bush hiding behind every curtain, waiting for another opportunity to make our lives miserable. And if you don't happen to agree with her, look out. You're a narrow-minded shill for the administration.

Take eminent domain, for example. How can you blame that on Bush? And it isn't as if we the people are just taking it lying down. Many states have already, quickly, put the brakes on abuse of that principle by passing their own laws. And that's good, that's the way the system is supposed to work.

So, because some cash-strapped towns and slick developers decided to try and twist the law for their own financial gain, she sees it as a dictatorship. I see it as just another day in the messy process called democracy. And we the people are still winning, and will always win that war.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I beg to differ with you, Jso. Maybe the money hungry are out there trying to take peoples homes away. BUT- What the #$$% is the matter with this president for NOT interfering in this and saying he wont allow it? Pfffft

YES, he can be EVERYPLACE. We pay him to mind the store. That means every facet of what is happening in the USA.

Then you agree that Sandra said something to the effect that a dictatorship could be sneaking up on us? Good. Its not just sneaking up on us, its got us by the throat and is choking the breadth out of us.

EVEN if the question of dictatorship was totally irrevalent, where is the accountability of this president?
There is none. He knows nothing, he sees nothing.



His approval is at 34% today. He laughs about it, and you know why? Cause it doesnt matter to him. Dictators thrive on hatred.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
jsobecky

No, I am not blaming all on bush, he is just another one in the list of chosen ones to rule our country while we believe that we elected them.

But do we really chose our leaders anymore?

They are served to us in a silver platter and we have only one choice of two.

So it doesn't matter who is in power or from which of the two main political parties in power comes from, they already are chosen to keep the agenda going one after another one enforcing what the last one left behind.

Hard to grasp that fact? yes it is but that's the way things has been run in our country for many years.

You are so wrong about me JS I just bring to this boards the side of life that many wants to rather ignore.




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join