No Crosses Count?
OK, so my frustration level with the clod in chief might be reaching tedious levels these days, but it's tough to keep that disgust in check when each day seemingly brings more evidence that we're living under a wannabe monarchy.
In Dumbya's signing last week of Sen. John McCain's bill banning torture, the president threw in a caveat in his "signing statement" that accompanied the legislation. It was a mighty sweet caveat. In short, he asserted that he can just disregard the ban as he sees fit.
More disturbing, an architect of using such "signing statements" to scuttle congressional intent is none other than Dumbya's Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito.
The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage and Rich Klein explain:
"In the past, presidents rarely issued such legal statements when signing bills. But in 1986, when Alito was working for former attorney general Edwin Meese III, the future nominee proposed that President Reagan issue signing statements more frequently.
"Alito contended that courts sometimes research congressional statements and reports when trying to interpret the intent of an ambiguous law. Alito proposed that the more frequent issuing of signing statements by presidents would 'increase the power of the executive to shape the law' by leaving a record of the president's view. 'Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress,' wrote Alito."
Dumbya has turned to such "signing statements" more than 500 times, according to Knight Ridder.
The hits just keep a-comin'.
posted by Chase McInerney @ 10:19 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
I guess this counts as a non-sequitur, but I'll take the shot anyway, Chase. While you're working up a froth over Bush, why not be an equal-opportunity frother and blog a little bit on gaseous, bloated, decrepit, alcoholic U.S. Senators from Massachusetts who seem to revel in making women cry, once in a while leave them to watery graves and outshine the most corrupt baddies from that ole Roman Empire, yet still manage to be called "the lion" of liberal America by a fawning media?
Because ... while I'm no fan of Ted Kennedy, I think it's fair game to ask a nominee about a racist, sexist, homophobic organization he once boasted about being part of but now can barely remember anything about them.
The Alito hearings have been a joke. Kennedy, Durbin and Biden have mades asses of themselves, sure -- as have Lindsay Graham, Tom Coburn and Orrin Hatch.
That said, Red Dirt -- er, anonymous, I mean -- kudos on the "watery grave" bit. That actually made me laugh.
Fawning media for Ted Kennedy? Which outlet would that be? Mother Jones? Air America? Not even the Globe "fawns" for Ted Kennedy. Pull your head out of your WorldNetDaily.
Chewy, Chewy, Chewy ... I just heard the "liberal lion" line on MSNBC last year. That's "fawning" for sure, although I guess MSNBC doesn't really count because no one really watches it except for news geeks like me. As for World Net Daily, that's a really cute line. But so deeply unrealistic, too, since as you're well aware not every conservative is a goose-stepping theocrat just like not every liberal is a Code Pink closet communist (present company excepted of course?).... Cheers.
Post a Comment
<< Home