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

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by jsobecky
So, some people shout down other people. So what? That's democracy, that's free speech.

No, it's not. ...another intellectual dishonesty....

What's dishonest about it, loam?

quote: Originally posted by jsobecky
When/if the Democrats get back in power, they will do the same. Guaranteed.

Sadly, I think you're right....and I will vehemently oppose such nonsense even then.

I forbid you to oppose it. After all, you just got done saying it was intellectually dishonest, didn't you?

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

.

You didn't keep reading... She continues:

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.

Maybe in your world. The base article I read has the next two paragraphs as

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."

Then she spoke the D-word. "I, said O'Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, 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."

Base article. Haven't we had this discussion about your low reading comprehension skills a couple of times before?

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.

Thank you for being honest about that.

Are you taking what I said as some kind of personal victory?

I'm not sure where in this thread someone said that, but there is no harm discussing whether we have arrived at the "beginnings" Sandra Day O'Connor mentions.

Do you get paid by the word, loam? I never even alluded to that. So either you like to type, or you're trying another distraction.

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.

This thread isn't about the article, but about Sandra Day O'Conner's comments. Why does the one invalidate the other?

See above.

Originally posted by jsobecky
So we must rely on the notes of the sole reporter present.

Again, are you suggesting that Nina Totenberg got it wrong??? As I pointed out earlier, she is hardly a novice:

Once again with the insertion of things I never said.

Discuss what SDO said all you want. Take a reporter's interpretation of SDO's tone as gospel. But don't try to make this out to be a left-right thing again. It gets very tiresome.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by loam
Read what I have already posted...they answer them all...

You did not anwser anything at all...all you did, which it appears to be what you normally do when you can't debate an argument, was make ad hominem attacks and proclaim "you Muaddib are wrong" without showing one iota of proof, except again to make more ad hominem attacks.

The questions and statements I made still stand....

Was the intention of the forefathers to draft an Independent Constitution, of the new nation that was to be known as The United States, to have future generations of American judges use foreign/international law to "persuasively" reach a judicial decision in American Courts forevermore? yes or no?

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib


The questions and statements I made still stand....

Was the intention of the forefathers to draft an Independent Constitution, of the new nation that was to be known as The United States, to have future generations of American judges use foreign/international law to "persuasively" reach a judicial decision in American Courts forevermore? yes or no?

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Muaddib]

It might help if you rephrased the question, because there is a huge difference between international and foreign law. I think a lot of people in this thread are confusing the two (although I'm a little confused as to how exactly we got from speaking about O'Connor's statement to this... BUT, since I like this field, I'll try to field your question.)

As regards international law, the answer is obviously yes, just look at the Supremacy Clause! John Jay, for one, argued for its importance in the Federalist Papers.

You'd have difficulty finding a judge who would argue this point since they all had to pass the bar and are no doubt familiar with the Supreme Court cases I mentioned in my last post, the decisions in which rely on the historical origins of the Supremacy Clause.

As regards foreign law, again I would refer you to my last post where I tried to describe the role of such in the US legal system. With that in mind, what the founding fathers wanted in regards to the use of foreign law in reaching decisions is exactly what we have today- a judiciary obviously bound by US law but free to consider a wide range of sources in reaching its decisions. The framers did not put any restrictions on the lines of reasoning employed by judges in the Constitution. In fact, they deliberately chose to stick with the British common law system, which frequently did make use of foreign legal concepts in its development. Any expansive and sound common law legal system has to be open to foreign concepts, or it cannot evolve. It doesn't make foreign law decisive, of course. So, again, the answer is yes as regards foreign law, but merely out of necessity.

The question, as you put it, most likely never arose... on the one hand, it's obvious US law was going to be its own body of law just as the US was to be its own independent nation, on the other hand it was just a fact that foreign law plays a small role in development of that law, something the founding fathers- many of whom were lawyers and/or realists, would have already assumed.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by koji_K]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by loam
Read what I have already posted...they answer them all...

You did not anwser anything at all...all you did, which it appears to be what you normally do when you can't debate an argument, was make ad hominem attacks and proclaim "you Muaddib are wrong" without showing one iota of proof, except again to make more ad hominem attacks.

The questions and statements I made still stand....

Was the intention of the forefathers to draft an Independent Constitution, of the new nation that was to be known as The United States, to have future generations of American judges use foreign/international law to "persuasively" reach a judicial decision in American Courts forevermore? yes or no?

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Muaddib]

that's okay, you didn't answer my question awhile back either. what does the justices chosing to refer to international courts as a reference in their decisions have to do with her statement about legislative and executive meddling (strong-arming) the judicial branch opening up a pathway to a dictatorship.

I don't think she was referring to international law, or the laws of other countries but rather actual events that have taken place in this country, for example, this:

-------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------

"Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., a 1990 George H. W. Bush appointee, in a concurring opinion, rebuked President Bush and Congress : "In resolving the Schiavo controversy, it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution."

"Because the special legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Bush "constitutes legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions (known as a 'rule of decision') the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle." To hold otherwise, Judge Birch concluded, would be to act in a manner consistent with the label "activist judge." "


en.wikipedia.org...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

which led to I believe it was DeLay making a rather omonous references that those judges responsible would be held accountable for their actions.....

I'm sorry, but I don't see where international law, or the courts desire to use it occasionally as a reference, had anything to do with this case. the judges were upholding our state and federal laws!! some just didn't like those laws, and wanted the justices to ignore them!

so, I don't see where O'Conner's belief that the courts should be free to use international laws occasionally as references to be any more relevant to this discussion as I do Bush's belief that he can sign laws against torture and plain out state he has no intention of obeying those laws he just signed shortly afterwards!!

although, I got to admit, that attitude does seem to validate the idea that we heading in the direction of a dictatorship.


two actual events that have occured rather recently that seem to support her claim. FACTS, not opinions.

*sigh* Good morn....


I just read through the balance of the posts since i last posted. I have come to the conclusion that some here would like a dictatorship, that they feel super protected by this current administration, and thus, they will carry that torch to the end. :shk:

Disect this all you want. Spin it all you want. We already have the big "D" in place. Enjoy it!

and not everybody would feel a loss of freedom in a dictatorial/facist/communistic society. it would depend on who you are. some in our society have gained more freedom to get on planes with a safer feeling, but there's been a cost paid by others in that they no longer can easily board that plane to fly, somebody has decided that the name that they have been given somehow indicates they are a threat, so weather they are a terrorist intent on destruction or a five year old kid who just happened to be the unfortunate recipient of that name, they will have one heck of a hassle getting on that plane, so you can enjoy feeling safer on it. if food, shelter, energy, ect happens to become scarce in the future, like it did in germany, freedoms may be taken from some, so that others can more fully enjoy the freedom to move about freely or be obese overeaters.
while the jews and others were interned in prison camps, used as slaves, and starved if not just gased, others who could very well have just earlier have been pushing wheelbarrows of money down the street to buy a small loaf of bread were living a really well off life....some lose so others can gain...
it all goes back to economics...or more specific, the collaspe of the economic system.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by dawnstar]

[edit on 17-3-2006 by dawnstar]

To answer Muaddip I have read the constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and The Federalist Papers and my conclusion is that they wanted a living, breathing document that changed and adapted to the times, without that it becomes static and dead. For example if the constitution were not meant to change and adapt they would not have put the means to amend it in it. Now I know you will say that it doesn't mean that judges should interept it BUT, and this is a big BUT how else can it grow and live if it is not constantly being reinterpted to fit the times? How else can an administration or congress run amuk be reigned in? We already know the laws of incumbancy so voting the buggers (and that is not to say anything bad about buggers :lol out of orfice (sorry meant office :lol really isn't a functional option other than every 4 or 6 years. All that being said the conservative objections about so called activist judges is a huge load of bullhooey, all they really want to do is replace them with conservative activist judges.

"Those who would trade their freedoms for a little bit of security, deserve neither." Ben Franklin.

Originally posted by grover
all they really want to do is replace them with conservative activist judges.

Besides all that, the vast majority of federal judges that the hard right rails about were appointed by Republican presidents (after all we ahve only had 2 Democratic presidents over 12 years since Johnson left office in 1968, 38 years, thats 26 years of Republican presidents to 12 Democratic years, AND the vast majority of nominated judges have been approved regardless of who controlled congress) and if asked would probably consider themselves conservatives...of course the hard right reactionaries and funnymentalists would never accept that, but then again they are fanatics in the first place.

"Those who would trade their freedoms for a little bit of security, deserve neither." Ben Franklin.

Koji_ thanks for that very nice explanation and I also notice the confusion about the issue, but it has to do more with trying to prove a point than anything else.

Your post summarized very well, while mine probably add just more to the confusion when I tried to explain how supreme court judges uses transjudicalism.

Dawnstar, sometimes people can not understand how certain things work in our country and people do get confuse in the used of terms.

I agree with you and you are voicing what I have been trying to say.

Dictatorship now a days has mature in a way that it doesn’t necessarily has to be the authoritarian rule of one person.

That type of dictatorship has become obsolete.

It all goes back to economics...or more specific, the collaspe of the economic system

Bingo!!!!!! Our world is rule by money, profits and free enterprise, a dictatorship of today will keep the people happy and satisfied while keeping them oblivious of what it does behind people’s back.

If you are happy with a pay check and all the fast food you can eat and all the religion you can get, you will not notice that at the same time your rights to question the government doings is becoming more and more off limits.

You can complain within your peers as long as you don’t get loud enough to become a tread to the government’s power.

Some can not understand this concept, the only dictatorship they understand is the one that kills the people that the government doesn’t want and starve the rest.

Funny.

Marg,:

dic·ta·tor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dkttr, dk-t-)
n.

An absolute ruler.
A tyrant; a despot.
An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency.
One who dictates: These initials are those of the dictator of the letter.

This is still the definition of a dictator. An absolute ruler, a tyrant. There are no good dictators, nor will there ever be.

Good morning, indeed.

maudib: I'll let the membership decide whether your questions were answered.

jsobecky: I think you're the one with reading comprehension issues...You can't even determine the rare instances when I was actually agreeing with you. Moreover, I noticed how you also conveniently avoided responding to a single substantive thing I posted.... Again, I'll let the membership decide.

Originally posted by loam

jsobecky: I think you're the one with reading comprehension issues...You can't even determine the rare instances when I was actually agreeing with you. Moreover, I noticed how you also conveniently avoided responding to a single substantive thing I posted.... Again, I'll let the membership decide.

I'm not going to get into one of your silly semantic wars, loam. Yeah, you go ahead and let the membership decide. That sound like someting O'Reilly would say.

Have fun.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by dgtempe

This is still the definition of a dictator. An absolute ruler, a tyrant. There are no good dictators, nor will there ever be.

You are right they are not good dictators but they are becoming sophisticated at the way they deliver their totalitarian powers.

It even may people love them, when they appeal to the desires of some, words like, For the good of the nation, and to keep our nation safe, and we are fighting a war on terrorism, and we are a Christian nation while shocking the nations rights.

They appeal to the patriot and religious conservative I can no wait what the Democrats will used to convince their side if they win the elections.

Will they keep the trend?


[edit on 17-3-2006 by marg6043]

OK, I've not commented upon the whole "dictatorship" thing, largely because I'm more inclined to see our current status along the lines of Sandra Day O'Connor's statement about "beginnings"...

BUT: If one considers the degree to which we have lost government accountability in this country, then yes, I'd say we are well on our way.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by loam]

No Marg, they are not more sophisticated.

They have always protected their people, instilled fear, talked real pretty, made promises and once they have you they own you.

Read up on Hitler, Stalin, Castro (just some off the top of my head) they operate totally by the same book.

They are all con men, tricksters, criminals, with a different malevolent agenda and psychosis.

There are no "modern" day dictators.

I want to add that the level of brutality CAN be a factor. Not all dictators are equally brutal. Some are more, some are less, history has shown.
While some may kill certain groups, others dont, etc.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by dgtempe]

Isn't everybody trying to make a point?...

Anyways, to anwser the question what does all that that I was talking about has to do with the comments of SDO, i already posted the reason...

She says that Republicans are strong-arming judges and she feels that this is the first step towards a dictatorship....

I posted this a while back in this same post but i guess noone saw it.

Foreign law
O'Connor was a vigorous defender of the citing of foreign laws in judicial decisions. In a well-publicized October 28, 2003 speech at the Southern Center for International Studies, O'Connor said:

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". [8]
In the speech she noted the 2002 Supreme Court case Atkins v. Virginia, in which the majority decision (which included her) cited disapproval of the death penalty in Europe as part of its argument.

This speech, and the general concept of relying on international law and opinion, was widely criticized by conservatives. [9] In May 2004, the House of Representatives responded by passing a non-binding resolution, the "Reaffirmation of American Independence Resolution", stating that "U.S. judicial decisions should not be based on any foreign laws, court decisions, or pronouncements of foreign governments unless they are relevant to determining the meaning of American constitutional and statutory law."

Excerpted from.
en.wikipedia.org...'Connor

Does anyone understand now what I am talking about?...

O'Connors wants the American Courts to keep using the conclusions reached by other countries and by the international community, and that the "persuasive authority" of such international decisions continue to be used increasingly in American courts.

The House of Representatives responded by passing the new "Reaffirmation of American Independence Resolution", which sems to be part of the "strong-arming" by Republicans that she talks about, and which states that "U.S. judicial decisions should not be based on any foreign laws, court decisions, or pronouncements of foreign governments unless they are relevant to determining the meaning of American constitutional and statutory law."

Now, people like loam want to believe there is nothing wrong with this, and he wants to get stucked in the use of the word "persuasive" which anyone with a dictionary can see exactly what the word means.

tending or intended or having the power to induce action or belief;

Excerpted from.
www.google.com...:persuasive

Some of you are also proponents that the NWO is all bad and evil....well, what do you think the "internationalization of legal relations" is as O'Connors mentions in the above quote?

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by dgtempe
No Marg, they are not more sophisticated.

They have always protected their people, instilled fear, talked real pretty, made promises and once they have you they own you.

Read up on Hitler, Stalin, Castro (just some off the top of my head) they operate totally by the same book.

They are all con men, tricksters, criminals, with a different malevolent agenda and psychosis.

There are no "modern" day dictators.

I want to add that the level of brutality CAN be a factor. Not all dictators are equally brutal. Some are more, some are less, history has shown.
While some may kill certain groups, others dont, etc.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by dgtempe]

DG....i have heard since the 1990s some people claim that the U.S. is a dictatorship....nothing of what they claimed came to pass, and if you want to talk about dictatorships, you should perhaps remember, or you should ask your parenst since you left Cuba when you were 3 years old, how was it that castro inticed people to accept the dictatorship that exists there now.

Castro was one of those people who kept bashing and blaming the administration in Cuba before "la revolucion", and even though that administration was not perfect, it was a hell of a lot better than what castro brought with his promises.

The U.S. is 100 times better than the administration that existed in Cuba before "la revolucion", but now some people have fallen once again for the "call to the workers to raise up against oppresion once more", which you should know exactly what it means.

DG, you have been a witness to what some people have been saying around here, that the "communist threat never existed", that "dissedents from Cuba, and every other Communist regime, are all paid by the U.S. government to say the things they say" and "Communism, or Socialism in Cuba isn't that bad"...you hear things like this from some "prominent members of these forums".....people who should know better. Are you going to fall in behind these people and make the same claims?

Anyways, that should be part of another discussion, if it ever comes up, because it doesn't have a whole lot to do with this topic, but I had to anwser your statement.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Muaddib

You have it so twisted that you have lost yourself in the whole opinion that you have created on the issue of using foreign law and Oconnor's comment.

But that is ok it happens.

Originally posted by marg6043
Muaddib

You have it so twisted that you have lost yourself in the whole opinion that you have created on the issue of using foreign law and Oconnor's comment.

But that is ok it happens.

No Marg, you, and some people want to believe what "you want to believe". All I did was post statements made by O'Connors and show what she means by "the strong-arming" which according to her is being done by Republicans in congress. Republicans in Congress are now a majority, and the new resolution to reafirm the independence of the U.S. was passed now that Republicans are the majority.

Some members are saying that it is just in some cases that she is saying that the strong-arming is happening, but as you can see by her own words and the conflict with the resolution passed in 2004 that it encompasses more than just a few court cases.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Let's say it all together, now... x-e-n-o-p-h-o-b-i-a

Maudib:

You fail to understand how potential legislation like the "Reaffirmation of American Independence Resolution" threatens the very core of our Constitution. You spout off at the mouth about murky, unverifiable NWO plots and fail to see the very real risk sitting before you. (Sometimes I start to think some people deserve oppression.) WAKE UP!

Chief Justice Rehnquist was against it...

The American Bar Association was against it...

In fact, even Congress was against it, as evidenced by the fact that it never made it out of committee.

Are you beginning to get the picture of how far on the fringe you sit?

:shk: