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.
Originally posted by grover
Of course it does...he's posted several times on this thread asserting that it is a false story even though you can find dozens of links to it and most from very reputable sources. He has done this before. Even though it didn't make the evening news (there is alot that doesn't), its all over the web and there has been no attempts to repudiate it...except for known republican collaborators and supporters.
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by grover
Of course it does...he's posted several times on this thread asserting that it is a false story even though you can find dozens of links to it and most from very reputable sources. He has done this before. Even though it didn't make the evening news (there is alot that doesn't), its all over the web and there has been no attempts to repudiate it...except for known republican collaborators and supporters.
Yes but what has this to do with what SDO said?
BTW, Republican doesn't need to be a bad word. Not to real Republicans.
That's another topic all together.
Originally posted by grover
...OK what does this have to do with what Sandra Day O'Connor said? Simple...It has become the practice of the hard right to shout down and to obstruct any voice they do not want to hear, and this happens here, in print and on the air, radio or TV.
Originally posted by intrepid
Sorry Muaddib, I know you dislike me debating you but this was just too much. A Republican appointed now ex-judge says something that doesn't comform to what you think/want and then she is discarded with such a feeble arguement. WHY? Because you don't like what she has to say? Because it goes against this Administration?
Originally posted by intrepid
"The fact remains that even U.S. officials can be wrong", does that include Bush? I think he was wrong about Iraq, thanks for giving credence to my arguement.
Originally posted by grover
...OK what does this have to do with what Sandra Day O'Connor said? Simple...It has become the practice of the hard right to shout down and to obstruct any voice they do not want to hear, and this happens here, in print and on the air, radio or TV.
O'Connor's voice was "dripping with sarcasm", according to Totenberg, as she "took aim at former House GOP [Republican] leader Tom DeLay. She didn't name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on abortions, prayer and the Terri Schiavo case.
O'Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."
Linking the words "America" and "dictatorship" is a daily staple of leftwing blogs, which thrive on the idea that Bush administration policies since 9/11 are taking the country ever closer to totalitarian rule.
The impressions we create in this world are important and can leave their mark... There is talk today about the "internationalization of legal relations." We are already seeing this in American courts, and should see it increasingly in the future. This does not mean, of course, that our courts can or should abandon their character as domestic institutions. But conclusions reached by other countries and by the international community, although not formally binding upon our decisions, should at times constitute persuasive authority in American courts - what is sometimes called "transjudicialism".
the European Court of Human Rights, various United Nations conventions, international human rights and other coutries
Originally posted by jsobecky
So, some people shout down other people. So what? That's democracy, that's free speech. When/if the Democrats get back in power, they will do the same. Guaranteed.
She never said we are a dictatorship.
You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Bush was quoted in Governing Magazine in 1998, describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked on another occasion.
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " Bush was quoted in the July 30, 2001, issue of Business Week.
Still the article on SDO has to be disected, chew and hacked because it doesn't match the opinons of some.
Originally posted by intrepid
BTW, Republican doesn't need to be a bad word. Not to real Republicans.
That's another topic all together.
Originally posted by Muaddib
SDO wants to discard over 200 years of judiciary in the United States, she wants other judges to keep using the laws from foreign countries to reach decisions in United States Courts, and she is debating that the decision by the House of Representatives that judges in the U.S. must use our own laws and our own experience of over 200 years of judiciary and she uses that as her argument for claiming the U.S. is at the beginning of becoming a dictatorship?......
Originally posted by Muaddib
Let me make it clearer... is the United States an independent country where judges should be using our own laws and our own experience in judiciary, which amounts to more than 200 years, or should the United States become an extension of European countries and United States judges should use European laws to base their decisions on?.....
I am pretty sure the anwser is very clear.
Originally posted by jsobecky
So, some people shout down other people. So what? That's democracy, that's free speech.
Originally posted by jsobecky
When/if the Democrats get back in power, they will do the same. Guaranteed.
Originally posted by jsobecky
From the base article:
O'Connor's voice was "dripping with sarcasm", according to Totenberg, as she "took aim at former House GOP [Republican] leader Tom DeLay. She didn't name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on abortions, prayer and the Terri Schiavo case.
Sounds like she has a special place in her heart for Delay. But does that mean he has to hold his opinions to himself? No, the same as she doesn't have to hold her sarcasm back. Is it "strongarming" the judiciary? No. Maybe. Short of impeachment, there's nothing Delay can do, other than yell and scream. SDO can just say .
This, said O’Connor, was after the federal courts had applied Congress’ onetime only statute about Schiavo as it was written. Not, said O’Connor, as the congressman might have wished it were written.
Schiavo case widens divide between Congress and courts
House Republican leader Tom DeLay's threat of retaliation -- even impeachment -- against federal judges for failing to do Congress' bidding in the Terri Schiavo case was just the latest manifestation of hostility from Capitol Hill toward the courts.
In the last year, the House has passed bills to divest federal judges of jurisdiction over legal challenges to the phrase "under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance and to the federal law that allows states to refuse recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other states.
A bill has also been proposed to prohibit federal courts from considering suits over government displays of the Ten Commandments, a case recently argued before the Supreme Court.
No such court-stripping measure has become law since at least the 1860s.
Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., author of a 2003 law that required judges to be reported to Congress whenever they reduced criminal sentences below federal guidelines, is now sponsoring a resolution that would instruct U.S. judges not to base any rulings on foreign court decisions. The measure is a response to the Supreme Court's references to international laws and viewpoints in recent rulings on the death penalty and same-sex sodomy.
Feeney was one-upped by Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who told the National Law Journal in October that the president should simply defy rulings by judges he considers activist.
When Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told a judicial conference in Monterey last July that relations between Congress and the federal courts were the worst she'd ever seen, she may not have realized how prophetic she was.
"In the last 20 years we're seeing, I think, erosion of the long-standing confidence folks have in the courts,'' said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor and author of the forthcoming book "When Courts and Congress Collide.''
More...
Originally posted by jsobecky
What has this got to do with us? Nothing, except to take note of her reminder to be ever vigilant, as shown by her statement
O'Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."
She never said we are a dictatorship.
Originally posted by jsobecky
People in this thread have, however. They have also said that our First Amendment rights are gone, seized by Bush. That's where I ask for examples, and when I get "hunches and feelings" as supposed proof, I dismiss them. So I get called a shill with tunnel vision. Big deal, that's the only argument that some people have.
Originally posted by jsobecky
The article that spurred all this discussion is an opinion piece on what SDO said, without even a transcript of her speech to fall back upon.
Originally posted by jsobecky
So we must rely on the notes of the sole reporter present.
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.
You have voted loam for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.
Originally posted by loam
Yes, officials can be wrong. But help me understand the relevancy of the point... Under your logic, I might as well not wear a life vest until AFTER I've drowned. There is no room for planning in your world view. That makes no sense to me.
Originally posted by loam
What are you in grade-school? Do I strike you as the kind of individual easily impressed by titles??? If I do, you'd be wrong.
Originally posted by loam
The simple fact is I have read her legal opinions extensively.... Have you?
Originally posted by loam
Yes. But my two year old son has no world experience or judgment...
Originally posted by loam
It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesn’t help, she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with.
I'd like to comment, but I have no idea what you are talking about...
Originally posted by loam
Yes....She stood at a podium...in front of a full audience of people...with a reporter present...at Georgetown University. Did you think these comments were made in her living room to a friend?
Originally posted by loam
By all means, do so. And when you have, please draw the connection between those examples and Sandra Day O'Connor's comments.
Originally posted by loam
No. As I tried to explain before, YOU are wrong. This would be an example of you making a statement of complete ignorance... Find any competent lawyer and ask.
Originally posted by loam
It is...and has ALWAYS been...how our legal system works.
Originally posted by loam
Yes, and you will not find anywhere that O'Connor says otherwise...or any other judge for that matter... Foreign judgments are used persuasively, not determinatively. Get it? Or is the idea too complex for you?
Originally posted by loam
Muaddib:
Refer to my last post.... I can't help you any further than that...
*sigh*