Signing Statements Watch-- Froomkin Blog --WaPo

[Demeter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/07/17/BL2006071700629_pf.html


FOURTH ITEM DOWN--SCALIA THE FASCIST SPEAKS

Charlie Savage writes in the Boston Globe: "In his dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court's decision on Guantanamo Bay military trials earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave a presidential signing statement significant weight in determining the meaning of a statute, marking a milestone in the debate over the Bush administration's expansion of executive power. . . .

"Scalia's dissenting opinion gave Bush's signing statement on a Guantanamo-related law passed by Congress equal weight to statements by the bill's authors, suggesting that there is no legal difference between the views of Congress and the president about what a law means."

Here's the section of Scalia's dissent , in which he writes sarcastically: "Of course in its discussion of legislative history the Court wholly ignores the President's signing statement, which explicitly set forth his understanding that the DTA ousted jurisdiction over pending cases."

Richard A. Epstein , a conservative law professor at the University of Chicago, writes in a Chicago Tribune opinion column: "President Bush dishonors traditions in his aggressive use of signing statements as one way among many to circumvent the congressional and judicial checks built into the Constitution. . . .

"Signing statements, I fear, could be the opening wedge to a presidential posture that judicial decisions may limit the president's ability to use courts to enforce his policies, but cannot stop him from acting unilaterally. On this theory, the president could continue to order wiretaps and surveillance in opposition to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act after a court had determined that he has exceeded his powers -- he just couldn't use the evidence acquired in court. Different branches of government have different views of the law, yet the executive marches on. A major check on executive power goes by the boards."

Blogger Andrew Sullivan writes: "Epstein is a limited government conservative with libertarian leanings. Hence his resistance to King George."

[napi21]

1. If our suspicions are right and he's spying on the Dems, he doesn't

have to worry about using the evidence in court! All he needs is for KKarl to know wthe Dem strategy!

Looks like the Dems are going to have to resort to the personal messengers like the al Qea does in order to keep their plans secret!