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

Originally posted by dgtempe
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

You haven't done your homework, dg. Eminent domain is written into the Constitution:

In the United States, the United States Constitution Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that just compensation be paid when the power of eminent domain is used, and requires that the property be taken for "public use". These requirements are sometimes called the "takings clause." Most courts have used "just compensation" to be the fair market value of the condemned property. Over the years the definition of "public use" has expanded to include economic development plans which use eminent domain seizures to enable commercial development for the purpose of improving the community. [1] Critics contend this perverts the intent of eminent domain law and damages personal property rights. Supporters contend that it is necessary to the improvement of communities in many situations in which transactions costs will prevent private parties from reaching efficient use of land.
en.wikipedia.org...

So you want him to change the constitution?

Dictators thrive on hatred.

Yeah, well, so do some lonely people.

Just to add to my last response, as I stated earlier, many states have already changed their eminent domain laws to protect their citizens. And that is good, and the way it should be.

Jso, back at ya as far as lonely people go.

I will have to check what the constitution says about the prez not giving a darn or intercepting when he very well could and should.

Thanks for the info.

Eminent Domain has existed and been used for the building of highways, etc.
THIS TIME its being abused (because they know they can get away now) in order to make a motel, hotels, or some other corporate project.

NOT the same, JSO

[edit on 16-3-2006 by dgtempe]

Originally posted by dgtempe
THIS TIME its being abused (because they know they can get away now) in order to make a motel, hotels, or some other corporate project.

NOT the same, JSO

[edit on 16-3-2006 by dgtempe]

Yes is has been abuse because now is giving rights to corporations to come and take advantage of the definition of eminent domain.

While in the constitution was OK by the meaning given it was been redefined.

Yes is states that The present governors are making a line between abuse and needed state improvements

But as elections change and so the leaders of the state the laws will change too depending who the interest the governors or leaders of the state served.

So far in GA the governor has been true to his word.

Originally posted by dgtempe

Eminent Domain ...(is) being abused because they know they can get away now) in order to make a motel, hotels, or some other corporate project.

I would like to know if Eminent Domain is being used to get land for hospitals - specifically, "medical spa" type hospitals with luxury suites and spa services.

Anybody know?

Originally posted by dgtempe
Jso, back at ya as far as lonely people go.

I'm never lonely as long as you're here to nag me, dg. It's almost like being married again.

I will have to check what the constitution says about the prez not giving a darn or intercepting when he very well could and should.

This is a perfect opportunity for you to suggest exactly what he could do.

Eminent Domain has existed and been used for the building of highways, etc.
THIS TIME its being abused (because they know they can get away now) in order to make a motel, hotels, or some other corporate project.

NOT the same, JSO

I realize that. In the passage I provided above, there was this:

Over the years the definition of "public use" has expanded to include economic development plans which use eminent domain seizures to enable commercial development for the purpose of improving the community.

I think it sucks when that is done. Case in point, down in Fla. some waterfront land occupied mainly by lower-income people with single family homes was grabbed to build a yacht club, etc. But that still doesn't make the US a dictatorship.

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

And what do you say for example about the comments that Senator Boxer made in 2002 that Communism was dead in Cuba and Communism doesn't exis anymore in the world?

What does this have to do with Sandra Day O'Connor? as you can see even those who are in power can be wrong.

Also if you read the alledged statements it seems that she is saying that at least two Republicans are strong-arming judges by making comments which makes people in the fringes of society make death threats to these judges.

There are a few fallacies in that statement. First, i do believe that Senators from time to time do make stupid comments which they shouldn't do, but I don't believe for one second that comments by Senators will be the reason why anyone in the "fringes of society" would make death threats to judges. I hope the authorities find whoever killed those judges and their families and that they pay in prison or get the electric chair for those crimes.

Now back to those comments. First, I find it strange that SDO would say that she doesn't want her comments made public, yet this reporter made the comments public in an obscure way.

Second, now that her "supposedly non-public comments" have magically made it to the public, perhaps she should explain exactly what she meant and why she is saying this, if it is true she made these comments and the reporter did not take her comments out of context.

Third, I need more proof than just the comments from anyone, even someone who was an ex-official, because as I demonstrated with the comments on another official working in the U.S. government, even officials, or ex-officials, in the case of Senator Boxer, can make stupid comments which can be nothing but lies.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by dgtempe
..............
Muaddib and Jsobecky, you deeply trouble me.

Two incredibly smart people who just absolutely refuse to see the truth.

It makes me sad.

Exactly, because we are two very intelligent people we don't jump to conclusions. If you want to agree with anyone and everyone who says the U.S. is a dictatorship, that is your choice, but it doesn't have to be mine.

I don't just change my opinion around just because of the obscure comments of anyone, even if it is an ex-official, so you shouldn't be sad for us DG.

BTW, unless I read it wrong it does appear that SDO and her colleage are/were basing their decisions on foreign laws.

In fact, here are some facts about her procedures in court and what the house of Representatives had to do because of her procedures. After reading the following, I am beginning to believe it is very possible she did make those statements.

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

Now she wants to say that the U.S. is beginning to move towards the path of dictatorship because she, and her colleages can't base their decisions on foreign laws?..... Please.....

If I remember correctly the United States is an independent country, and it is not an extension of Europe or any other countries.

You can correct me if I am wrong. Is the United States and independent country, yes, or no? If it is an independent country, why are judges making decisions on foreign laws? We have our own laws, which is part of what being independent means.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Muaddib, for the love of God, you of all people know what COULD happen....

:shk: :shk:

Exactly dg, you left when you were very small, and you did not see nor remember what a dictatorship is, which is why I forgive you being a liberal.


---edited for errors and to add comment---

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
And what do you say for example about the comments that Senator Boxer made in 2002 that Communism was dead in Cuba and Communism doesn't exis anymore in the world?

First, Boxer is no Sandra Day Oconnor... Be very clear about that! Moreover, Boxer's statements were made under the misguided assumption that because she witnessed an underlying market of US dollar exchange in Cuba, that somehow represented less "oppressiveness" than is otherwise truly the case in Cuba. She would be wrong.

Originally posted by Muaddib
What does this have to do with Sandra Day O'Connor? as you can see even those who are in power can be wrong.

Again, a ridiculous comparison...

Originally posted by Muaddib
Also if you read the alledged statements it seems that she is saying that at least two Republicans are strong-arming judges by making comments which makes people in the fringes of society make death threats to these judges.

Wrong again... What she was reported to have said was:

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. She didn’t name him, but it was Texas senator John Cornyn who made that statement, after a Georgia judge was murdered in the courtroom and the family of a federal judge in Illinois murdered in the judge’s home. O’Connor observed that there have been a lot of suggestions lately for so-called judicial reforms, recommendations for the massive impeachment of judges, stripping the courts of jurisdiction and cutting judicial budgets to punish offending judges. Any of these might be debatable, she said, as long as they are not retaliation for decisions that political leaders disagree with.

Source.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Now back to those comments. First, I find it strange that SDO would say that she doesn't want her comments made public

Could you please point out to me where this is documented.... At this point, I have too many sources and can't find it. I'll be glad to respond to the remainder of your post after that. Thanks.

But I can respond to the following statement, now...

Originally posted by Muaddib
Third, I need more proof than just the comments from anyone, even someone who was an ex-official, because as I demonstrated with the comments on another official working in the U.S. government, even officials, or ex-officials, in the case of Senator Boxer, can make stupid comments which can be nothing but lies.

There are obviously degrees of credibility...and of course, regardless of what you believe, SDO is proffering her opinion. However, I think it interesting that you characterize, by way of implication, that her statements were "we are in a dictatorship," when in fact what she said was:

It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.

I also think it odd that in this context you demand proof of her assertions... I wonder how many in history fell victim to tyranny simply because they ignorantly denied the possibility of its existence? Germany would be a great example. The only proof many of them received was only AFTER they were taken away to the death camps.

*sigh*

:shk:

What a sad argument against remaining vigilant against those who might seek to oppress us... If there is any extremism found in this thread, it is the fantasy that we are somehow uniquely special or immune from the lessons history teaches about oppression.

I DO know what a dictatorship is *stomps feet*

Anyway, i've had my say, gentlemen.

I am off to cook for MY personal dictator. Peace be with you.

You may learn some day just how it really is.

Here's hoping



[edit on 16-3-2006 by dgtempe]

we are an independant country that have signed international treaties that do in fact bind us in some respects to international laws.....

so, to the effect that the courts ruling is upholding or denying those treaties, yes international laws should at times be a consideration for the courts...

by the way.....

if we use the excuse that many in government service has been wrong many times in the past to to automatically dismiss things that they say now....since, well, they could always be wrong again, right? well, wouldn't that lead to the conclusion that no body should be believed?


www.sos.state.tx.us...

nonais.org...

they are susposedly using the databanks that those nice little shopping cards we all use, survalience of message forums, satellite imaging, ect...to track down who owns these animals. and yes, one little chicken or goat is all that is needed. and well, by what I hear, if they determine that you need to register your property, well, then they want you to photocopy the id of any visitors that visit your property and report that to them.

this might not smell of a dictatorship to you, but it does smell of a government intent into prying way too much into it's citizen's personal affairs.

and well, these regulations, some are saying are gonna drive the small farmers, those 4-h kids, ect. out of business, leaving just the corporations who are able to actually absorb the cost of all this.

this goes in quite nicely with the question of our legal system recognizing international laws....we have treaties signed, we aren't susposed to meddle so deeply into an individuals food supply. if someone has chosen to grow it themselves, the laws shouldn't become so burdonsome as to force him to change his habits..






[edit on 16-3-2006 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Exactly, because we are two very intelligent people we don't jump to conclusions.

I might have agreed with you, until I read the rest of your post...

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, unless I read it wrong it does appear that SDO and her colleage are/were basing their decisions on foreign laws.

In fact, here are some facts about her procedures in court and what the house of Representatives had to do because of her procedures. After reading the following, I am beginning to believe it is very possible she did make those statements.

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

Now she wants to say that the U.S. is beginning to move towards the path of dictatorship because she, and her colleages can't base their decisions on foreign laws?..... Please.....

If I remember correctly the United States is an independent country, and it is not an extension of Europe or any other countries.

You can correct me if I am wrong. Is the United States and independent country, yes, or no? If it is an independent country, why are judges making decisions on foreign laws? We have our own laws, which is part of what being independent means.

You clearly, then, have NO understanding of how the law works...

In cases of first impression, where within the jurisdiction there have been no judicial precedents, "foreign" (which can mean, another district, state, circuit, or country) decisions have ALWAYS been viewed as persuasive authority... They are never considered determinative.

The use of foreign case law as guidance in this country has been true from the very beginning...

:shk:

Ignorance. Plain and simple.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]

Originally posted by loam

I might have agreed with you, until I read the rest of your post...

Please loam, spare me the drama....

Originally posted by loam

You clearly, then, have NO understanding of how the law works...

Really? well, it is your opinion, doesn't make it true thou.

Originally posted by loam

The use of foreign case law as guidance in this country has been true from the very beginning...

The use of foreign law as guidance in this country was used at the beginning because we did not have any judicial precedents....but after what?...over two hundred years of having a judiciary, and being that The United States is an Independent Country, judges should be basing their conclusion on our own laws....not the laws of Europe, or any other country....

Originally posted by loam

Ignorance. Plain and simple.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]

Are you calling yourself ignorant? Hey don't feel sad, there is a beginning for everything....

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Muaddib]

BTW loam...you actually think that when SDO mentions "foreign" and "international" she is referring to the laws in other districts, or other states in the U.S.?..... tsk, tsk...


[edit on 16-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by loam
(which can mean, another district, state, circuit, or country)

:shk:

I'm comfortable with letting the membership decide who is being intellectually dishonest here...

By the way, ever hear of "case of first impression"??? Ask any lawyer how common that really is...





[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by loam
(which can mean, another district, state, circuit, or country)

:shk:

loam...don't try it, you mentioned what it could mean trying to save some face, but we can see exactly that she did not mean either laws in another district, another state, or circuit in the United States.... she meant the use of international laws.

If you want to keep laughing at your own expense, go ahead.

Originally posted by Muaddib
...what it could mean...

No. Not what it "could" mean, but what it DOES mean.

Originally posted by Muaddib
... but we can see exactly that she did not mean either laws in another district, another state, or circuit in the United States.... she meant the use of international laws.

I never said otherwise. Read again what I wrote.

Originally posted by loam
First, Boxer is no Sandra Day Oconnor... Be very clear about that!

Wether or not she is "no Senator Boxer" the fact remain that even U.S. officials can be wrong.

Originally posted by loam
Again, a ridiculous comparison...

loam....we all know that some of you want to believe this woman because she is an ex-judge, as if judges could not be wrong.... That is not a ridiculous comparison, anyone could make wrong decisions and comments, anyone, and that is a fact.

Originally posted by loam
Wrong again... What she was reported to have said was:

Again, you did not put on bold the whole statement, and btw, she made more than one statement....Let me help you with that.
i just have to make a small change and then perhaps you will see what I meant...

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.
.....................
Source.

Originally posted by loam
Could you please point out to me where this is documented.... At this point, I have too many sources and can't find it.

I'll be glad to respond to the remainder of your post after that. Thanks.

Did you see her coming out in public to say this?

Originally posted by loam
............
I wonder how many in history fell victim to tyranny simply because they ignorantly denied the possibility of its existence? Germany would be a great example. The only proof many of them received was only AFTER they were taken away to the death camps.

*sigh*

:shk:

I wonder "how many people fell victim to tyranny" because they ignorantly accepted without questioning the word of "new liberators "who promised the masses to release them from tyranny", but in fact brought tyranny to such countries and people. I can mention quite a few of those too.

Originally posted by loam
What a sad argument against remaining vigilant against those who might seek to oppress us... If there is any extremism found in this thread, it is the fantasy that we are somehow uniquely special or immune from the lessons history teaches about oppression.

She was actually talking about the "supposed oppression" of judges who decide to base their decision on the laws of other countries. That is her whole argument. Which for some motive either the reporters or any of the news media which are using this as a tool for political bickering are not mentioning at all.....

Perhaps she thought/thinks that she has the choice to use the laws of other countries to reach decision of cases in the U.S., but she is wrong because the U.S. is not an extension of other countries, and we have our own judiciary and our own laws.

Perhaps if people understood the premises and context of her chosen words, people will see the truth of her statements.... But perhaps that's too much to ask?

What she is saying is that she believes judges are being "strong-armed" because the house of Representatives though that judges should be using our own laws to reach their conclusions, instead of using the laws of other countries.

She is trying to imply that comments made by some officials are in part the reason why there are people in the "fringes of society" (in other words, the same American civilians whose rights she is saying could be at risk) who are threatening her and other judges because they are basing their decisions on the laws from other countries, which the defendants seem to be against.

I am not saying that the defendants are right in making death threats, noone has the right to do that. But she, and her colleage, are trying to put the blame of these death threats on others, when it is their decisions to use the laws in other countries which seem to be the cause of these death threats.


[edit on 16-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Wether or not she is "no Senator Boxer" the fact remain that even U.S. officials can be wrong.

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 Muaddib
loam....we all know that some of you want to believe this woman because she is an ex-judge, as if judges could not be wrong....

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.

The simple fact is I have read her legal opinions extensively.... Have you?

I also happen to think that based upon her legal writings, she has one of the most brilliant legal minds of our day. It is also a fact that many in the legal profession feel the same.

Between you and I, who's opinion about her is founded upon more information??? I am certain of the correct answer. And you hold yourself out to be objective, informed and a denier of ignorance...

Originally posted by Muaddib
That is not a ridiculous comparison, anyone could make wrong decisions and comments, anyone, and that is a fact.

Yes. But my two year old son has no world experience or judgment...should I then be assessed based upon his deficiencies? Why not? The connection would be more compelling than the one you draw between Boxer and O'Connor.... At least, he and I are biologically related.

In fact, utilizing your logic, shouldn't I discount your opinions entirely, because there are other ATS members who advance specious arguments?

:shk:

Originally posted by Muaddib
Again, you did not put on bold the whole statement, and btw, she made more than one statement....Let me help you with that.
i just have to make a small change and then perhaps you will see what I meant...

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.
.....................
Source.

I'd like to comment, but I have no idea what you are talking about...

Originally posted by Muaddib
Did you see her coming out in public to say this?

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 Muaddib
I wonder "how many people fell victim to tyranny" because they ignorantly accepted without questioning the word of "new liberators "who promised the masses to release them from tyranny", but in fact brought tyranny to such countries and people. I can mention quite a few of those too.

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 Muaddib
She was actually talking about the "supposed oppression" of judges who decide to base their decision on the laws of other countries. That is her whole argument. Which for some motive either the reporters or any of the news media which are using this as a tool for political bickering are not mentioning at all.....

Perhaps she thought/thinks that she has the choice to use the laws of other countries to reach decision of cases in the U.S., but she is wrong

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.

It is...and has ALWAYS been...how our legal system works.

Originally posted by Muaddib
because the U.S. is not an extension of other countries, and we have our own judiciary and our own laws.

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 Muaddib
Perhaps if people understood the premises and context of her chosen words, people will see the truth of her statements.... But perhaps that's too much to ask?

What she is saying is that she believes judges are being "strong-armed" because the house of Representatives though that judges should be using our own laws to reach their conclusions, instead of using the laws of other countries.

She is trying to imply that comments made by some officials are in part the reason why there are people in the "fringes of society" (in other words, the same American civilians whose rights she is saying could be at risk) who are threatening her and other judges because they are basing their decisions on the laws from other countries, which the defendants seem to be against.

I am not saying that the defendants are right in making death threats, noone has the right to do that. But she, and her colleage, are trying to put the blame of these death threats on others, when it is their decisions to use the laws in other countries which seem to be the cause of these death threats.

*yawn*

Again, returning to my earlier comments...."criticism" and "incitement" are VASTLY different exercises.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by loam
First, Boxer is no Sandra Day Oconnor... Be very clear about that!

Wether or not she is "no Senator Boxer" the fact remain that even U.S. officials can be wrong.

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?

"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.