Crazyhorse1 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Long a moderate and a justice who helped Bush become President in 2000, Justice O'Connor said on NPR that Republican attacks on the courts could lead to a dictatorship in the U.S. Maybe this will be a wake up call for some of you at last. http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Retired_Supreme_Court_Justice_hits_attacks_0310.html Characteristics of a State becoming a police State: 1) Increased government control using war status as an excuse. 2) Government surveilance on one hand, secrecy on the other. 3) Control of media. courts and other branches of the government. 4) Uncontrolled spending, no bidding contracts to favored suppliers 5) Repudiation of international law 6) Belief that government is above the law. No accountability. 7) Demonizing of foreign populations and political enemies 8) Indefinite detentions without trial on suspicion 9) Secret government prison camps 10) Breakdowns in public services, projects, disaster relief, ecology, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I don't know what to say to this...wow. Hmm, I don't see any quotes...:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Kind of scathing. But I wonder why she would retire if she felt this way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 International law is a relatively recent concept. Repudiating it is not part and parcel of the police state. Most monarchies were unfriendly to the idea of republican government--in a sense, the Founders repudiated the existing order. Hardly police-state material. The other thing that's funny is where were you when Begala was saying stuff like "stroke of the pen, law of the land--kinda cool?" Do your homework and then do some thinking, "crazy." Oh, and develop some consistency. The US had slid from its ideals long before Bush (it's called the New Deal.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Kind of scathing.But I wonder why she would retire if she felt this way? Rumor has it she is as sick as a dog. I bet she is dead within 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Wow that were pretty strong statements on her part. I suggest people actually read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 She left because she realized the Republicans and Democrats did not want her to become dictator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I don't know, there's something fishy about this article. How easy would it have been to at least use her own words, for some of that? (I'm not sure if I agree with her or not, probably not. But the article makes her sound like she was just ranting because of some comments by Congress that she took personally. At least that's the feel I got from it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Rumor has it she is as sick as a dog. I bet she is dead within 2 years. That has been the word on the street for a long time too. I had heard she almost retired a while back due to cancer, but it went in remission and she stayed on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 International law is a relatively recent concept. Repudiating it is not part and parcel of the police state. International law is a pretty old concept and something that the founders understood - basic rules of contract, tort, and civil rights weren't written into the Constitution and were understood as part of the "general law" of the world. There were also pretty clear laws of war and laws of the sea that have bound nations since colonial times. Most monarchies were unfriendly to the idea of republican government--in a sense, the Founders repudiated the existing order. Hardly police-state material. The other thing that's funny is where were you when Begala was saying stuff like "stroke of the pen, law of the land--kinda cool?" I believe Clinton later suspended Executive Order 13083. Every President in history has tried to assert greater executive power - this is nothing new. The founders anticipated the tendency of each branch to try to expand its power, so they created a system of checks in balances. Even Thomas Jefferson, the chief antagonist of executive power, circumvented Congress and the states when he made the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson was of course, like Bush, a huge opponent of the judiciary. Do your homework and then do some thinking, "crazy." Oh, and develop some consistency. The US had slid from its ideals long before Bush (it's called the New Deal.) The conservatives love pointing to the New Deal, but you might as well point to the Progressive Policies of Teddy Roosevelt or Lincoln's federal power grab during the Civil War and Reconstruction. And it's not all that clear that a strong federal executive is not the ideal of the founders - Washington and Adams were Federalists after all. I agree with you though that President Bush's asserting Executive power is nothing new. Bush's moves fall into the same category as Nixon, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, and as far back as Adams. However, it's also very important for people like Justice O'Connor to speak out against these power grabs, because the system of checks and balances only works when each branch asserts its power ... we are definitely in a period when Congress and the Judiciary have both been deferring substantially to the Executive. If they don't push back, there is certainly a danger of taking steps towards a police state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Wow that were pretty strong statements on her part. I suggest people actually read it. I would, but it was posted by CrazyHorse, so I wont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I don't know if I've ever seen a piece of journalism conveyed in that manner (i.e., a paraphrase of the entire encounter). It honestly doesn't sound all that left field as far her opinion on the subject, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 12 posts and not one 'lighten up, sandy baby!' ???? i must have missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 There has been a thread of dictatorship in this nation for quite a while: Bush is merely strengthening this possibility. And with Bush's recent actions over the past few years, and his seeming desire to establish the Presidency ever more apart from the other two branches of government, we are drawing nearer and nearer to a dictatorship. But folks naively think that we need goose-legging and swastikas to be a dictatorship. I have posted previously to the modern Presidential Directives and Executive Orders as being some of the mechanisms for a developing dictatorship. It is interesting that the "laws of the sea" were mentioned in an above post - do most of us realize that maritime laws are used in our court system? That is one of the methods used by the Feds for forfeiture and seizures. (And possibly one of the reasons why you see a gold fringed flag in a U.S. court: An American flag with a gold fringe is NOT a flag of the United States - it is a martime and military flag.) Eternal vigilance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Somebody let me know when Bush wins a 3rd term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Somebody let me know when Bush wins a 3rd term. I was just going to make that point. Tough to fear a dictatorship with a known end date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Somebody let me know when Bush wins a 3rd term.Hey you never know, the Dems did it with FDR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I love how Crazyhorse posts these drive-by threads then disappears from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Crazy Horse- are you going to post EVERY article which slams the President? I mean, why not just give the link to Daily Kos and save us all bandwidth.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Well, Kilmer, you would be happy to know that there is an initiative to have the Twenty-second Amendment repealed. Also, the dictatorship does not have to be held by one man or woman. Some dictatorships are not simply a cult of personality, but a system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Somebody let me know when Bush wins a 3rd term. Here's a thought. How much "real" difference is/was there between regan/bush/clinton/bush...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Well, Kilmer, you would be happy to know that there is an initiative to have the Twenty-second Amendment repealed.Also, the dictatorship does not have to be held by one man or woman. Some dictatorships are not simply a cult of personality, but a system. This is from Wikipedia so I don't vouch totally for authenticity but..."Former U.S. president Bill Clinton has recently voiced his opinion in favor of modifications to the 22nd Amendment.[1] According to President Clinton, former presidents who have already served two terms should be allowed to run for the office again, after some interim period has passed. He reasoned that the country might wish to trust leadership onto an already tried and proven candidate in times of great need." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Here's a thought.How much "real" difference is/was there between regan/bush/clinton/bush...? Not much in terms of power. But the fact that they are different people excludes the use of the term Dictatorship. IMO, Justice O'Connor probably told this person she thought the US was moving towards a stronger Executive Branch, which I agree it is. The reporter spun it to meet his or her own agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twist Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Kind of scathing.But I wonder why she would retire if she felt this way? I'm baffled, if I felt this way, and was on the Supreme Court, I would throw my self in front of it, even if it meant suffering and dieing a horrible death, not bow out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Actually, time in power has nothing to do with the definition of a dictator, it only is defined in terms of the power held by the individual. In fact, any system of government could be called dictatorial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.