The Nazi Administration

The BBQ Pit
21

Yeah, well, perhaps I did overstate the title a bit.

But, then, I’m an American, and Bush scares the unholy hell out of me.

The JUDGES… well… I don’t like it, but he’s not the first President to do it. It angers me that he seems to think that doing an end-run around the Constitutional “checks and balances” is perfectly well and good…

…but he’s not the first, nor will he be the last. It’s slimy, sure, but others have done it. It’s despicable, and contrary to everything an American leader should do… but it ain’t new.

But how any American can say that locking people up indefinitely, no lawyer, no charges, no visitors, no nothing, fuck YOU, … is OKAY…

…I’m sorry, but if you believe this, I am forced to put you in the same category with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and anyone else who seems to have a shitload of money, a Nazi attitude, and a serious investment in the One-Party-System. I mean, isn’t this what Stalin did?

As I recall, quite a few people vanished under Stalin simply for disagreeing with the party line… never to be seen again. Sometimes they came back, if they were lucky, or had political clout.

The idea of ALLOWING any politician to do this frankly strikes me as INSANE. Isn’t this what we’ve fought several wars to prevent? Read the Constitution.

Ben Franklin said it best: he who’d sacrifice his freedoms for security will have neither.

22

Sorry not to leap into the rhetoric battle, but I have a question from a link in the OP:

Is there any truth to the charge of “unprecedented obstructionist tactics”? The key being “unprecedented”. Don’t both parties do this to each other all the time when they don’t like the politics of the other party’s nominees?

23

Why yes, yes they do. I have no idea what’s so scary about this. Sneaky politics inside the beltway? Gasp and swoon. Oh, yeah that’s right, it’s King George up to the skullduggery, he and his cronies must be chipping away at our freedoms again :rolleyes: In other news the sky is falling.

24

At least it’s clear he’s not on a mission from God. Otherwise he’d be trying to get the band back together.

25

He’s doing exactly what Clinton did with Roger Gregory on the 4th Circuit. Lyndon Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall to the 2nd Circuit via a recess appointment. You going to call those two Nazis also?

26

What was controversial about Roger Gregory or Thurgood Marshall? (I have no idea who Gregory is. Maybe Marshall was controversial because he wasn’t white?)

In my question I was more focused on Bush acting as if this has never happened. I assume it happens all the time, in both directions (obstruction of nominees and finding ways around the obstruction by the opposite side), so how was this latest obstruction “unprecedented”?

27

What is somewhat unprecedented is that the majority of the Senate wants to confirm Pryor, and his appointment (along with several others) is being blocked by a minority filibuster. I’m not certain, but I don’t think that has ever happened on a judicial appointment (there of course have been filibusters before, although not for a while I believe). I think Marshall was opposed by either a majority of the Senate or a majority of the judiciary committee, who in those days were stacked with mostly Democrat segregationist types.

28

I never used the word “unprecedented.” One could argue that Thurgood Marshall was controversial for not being white, sure… but LBJ was famous for that sort of thing. Still doesn’t make it the best way to do it.

But, as I said earlier, LBJ wasn’t the first to do it, nor was he the last. Underhanded political tactics don’t make you a Nazi, in my book.

Underhanded political tactics, attempting to rewrite the Constitution to legally discriminate against certain groups, and attempting to legalize the Gulagization of anyone the administration chooses to label as a “terrorist,” with or without any kind of proof or due process…

…well, shit, if that ain’t “Nazi,” what IS? Does he actually have to start barbecuing Jews or something?

29

On Gregory, he was blocked in committee by Jesse Helms, I believe, who thought him too liberal (or was POed that Clinton didn’t consult him, as he thought himself the kingmaker for judical appointments in the 4th Circuit). Bush renominated Gregory after the recess appointment after Jesse left the Senate, and he was quickly confirmed (some Nazi there, eh?)

Marshall was not confirmed because a number of Democrat senators from the South tried to tag him as “unqualified” (basically, they didn’t like what he’d done in the NAACP in taking down segregation).

30

Good. So I guess we now both agree that the Pryor recess appointment was nothing more than the sort of political jockeying that goes on between Presidents and Congress, and using that to claim Bush is a “Nazi” is unfair?

31

This just in: Bush apparently is advocating and practicing euthanasia without due process or written or verbal consent or anything!:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4338522/

32

I find it disturbing that you continue to ignore that the man is running a private concentration camp in Cuba, where it can’t be effectively monitored by anyone BUT the administration, and is seeking the right to do the same thing to American citizens… on nothing more than his say-so.

Gee, I think I’ll bring that one up again.

That, in and of itself, I would find disturbing in any President. I found it disturbing when I read that past Presidents have done the same thing (albeit during WWII, when such things were much more acceptable to the average white voting American male).

This, combined with his gleeful habit of appointing judges that he knows he can’t get confirmed, EVEN WITH REPUBLICAN CONTROL OF CONGRESS, scares the unholy fuck out of me.

However, since the word “Nazi” bothers you (and others,) I will exercise a little humility here, apologize for my misstatement, retract it, and substitute the phrase “Ruthless fucking plutocratic fascist sonofabitch.”

Happy?

33

Only as the result of obstructive parlimentary tactics by a minority of the Senate. If that scares the unholy fuck out of you, maybe we should just appoint a dictator so that the majority no longer rules in the country. Then we wouldn’t have the sort of Nazi tactics that the Republican majority in Washington have been engaging in, contrary to the will of the minority.

34

Well, yeh, it does more accurately* describe him and his administration. Wouldn’t fit very well in a thread title, though.

*Other than the “fucking”, unless you mean that metaphorically as applied to the body public.

35

Yup, works for me.

36

That’s odd, I for some reason thought Guantanamo Bay was run by the government. Little did I know that Mr. Bush has this operating as a private facility.

And the Red Cross, which has sent officials there on several occassions.

37

I’d like to start by agreeing that Bush isn’t Hitler. Cheney is Hitler. Just kidding; actually they both take orders from Hitler’s living brain, preserved in a tank.

Seriously? This administration has led me to use words that I never used before without irony (when referring to the U.S. government). “Fascism”; “imperialism”; “tyranny.” Words that used to make me roll my eyes. Freedom is taken away bit by bit; people get used to the new status quo, and think, “Surely it won’t go any further.” It’s enough to give ordinary citizens a touch of that militia-group paranoia. (That reminds me; I wanted to invite Ashcroft to sit on a flagpole and spin.)

38

Apologies to Oliver Wallace:

[When the Shrubya says, “I’ll win this '04 race!”
We HI, Y’all! HI, Y’all! right in the Shrubya’s face.
Not to love the Shrubya is a great disgrace.
We "HI, Y’all! HI, Y’all! right in the Shrubya’s face!

39

…is this the best you can do?

The U.S. Government is operating a concentration camp, AND attempting to end-run the Constitution so they can put you and me in it if they decide we’re going to blow something up, and you want to pounce on a trite statement? Boyohboy, everyone watch out for schplebordnik, he’s gonna show us all how to win a debate, here. Chum, as far as I can see, Bush seems to think he IS the government. At least, he doesn’t seem inclined to consult with Congress as far as installing federal judges, now, does he?

Oh, wait, that’s right… he’s only doing it because of those naughty obstructionist minorities in the Senate. Jeez, what’s the difference between what he’s doing and what a dictator would do? “Control the coinage and the courts, and let the rabble have the rest…”

And, to my knowledge, the Red Cross is not monitoring Guantanamo Bay. They have sent observers there on several occasions, but I was under the impression they were not allowed a permanent presence.

Perhaps I am wrong.

I notice, however, that you are continuing to argue, without ever answering the question at hand: Do you feel that this is appropriate action for the Executive Branch of the United States Government?

And don’t EVEN get me started on Bush’s policy on protesters along his parade routes.

40

[QUOTE=Master Wang-Ka]
I notice, however, that you are continuing to argue, without ever answering the question at hand: Do you feel that this is appropriate action for the Executive Branch of the United States Government?

[QUOTE]

If that is the question at hand, then you are going to have to set for what the “this” is in your question.

If the question is: “Is it appropriate for the president to make recess appointments of judges?” I would say no, the President shouldn’t be able to do that at all. But I would also say that the Congress ought not to have the right to filibuster, or for a single Senator in a committee to kill a presidential nomination. Let the president nominate someone. If the Congress, by a majority, confirms the nomination, he/she gets on the bench, if not he/she doesn’t. Under that rule, Pryor gets on the bench, as does Miguel Estrada, as does Roger Gregory (probably) as does Thurgood Marshall (probably). And Robert Bork, well, he’s out of luck, as happened historically.

As for Guantanamo, I’m not clear what your beef is. Do you believe that the government should not have the right to hold captive prisoners of war? An interesting contention, but its has such long-standing historical precedent it seems hard to justify (although the Nazis did hold some of our guys POW, so maybe that’s where the Nazi angle gets in). If your argument that the government oughten to be able to designate individuals “enemy combtants” subject to military courts rather than civilian courts, fine – but recall that FDR’s administration set the precedent there, and a Supreme Court pretty much packed with FDR appointees confirmed that that was appropriate under the Constitution. So I guess FDR is the uber-Nazi, despite the fact that he spend a good chunk of his administration fighting the Nazis, and in fact the original “enemy combatants” were sent over to the USA to conduct sabotage/terrorism by, of all places, Nazi Germany. And if you don’t like this, what do you propose as an alternative? If as part of our military’s actions in Afghanistan, they capture individuals actively fighting against them or actively plotting terrorist actions against they USA, should they just let them go? How about Osama bin Laden – if we catch him, what happens? Take him to NYC and drop him into the state court system?