Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 07/25/2006 View Mon 07/24/2006 View Sun 07/23/2006 View Sat 07/22/2006 View Fri 07/21/2006 View Thu 07/20/2006 View Wed 07/19/2006
1
2006-07-25 Home Front: Politix
Senator Arlen "Iscariot" Specter Preparing To Sue Bush
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymoose 2006-07-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11140 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 With RINOs like Specter, who needs donks
Posted by Captain America 2006-07-25 00:32||   2006-07-25 00:32|| Front Page Top

#2 Imperialistic assholes inthe senate, regardless of party. Somone needs to reign in the senate, ban fillibusters, and stop the damned obstructianism that makes the Senate nearly useless and easey to hide sleaze in - an instituttion becoming rife with corrpution.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-07-25 00:56||   2006-07-25 00:56|| Front Page Top

#3 Snarlin Arlen shows his true colors. And keep in mind the *only* reason Specter is still a Senator is because Bush personally stumped for him during the primaries. Otherwise Toomey would have won.
Posted by Iblis">Iblis  2006-07-25 01:07||   2006-07-25 01:07|| Front Page Top

#4 My personal preferred solution to this sort of problem is extrajudicial.
Posted by cruiser 2006-07-25 02:45||   2006-07-25 02:45|| Front Page Top

#5 This will back fire on Snarlin Arlen. He can't deny bush his first amendment rights. Bush can say whatever he wants, but he must also faithfully execute the laws and has.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-25 07:44||   2006-07-25 07:44|| Front Page Top

#6 What a dipwad! He is in the wrong party. Hell, he is in the wrong reality.
Posted by JohnQC 2006-07-25 08:06||   2006-07-25 08:06|| Front Page Top

#7 But many of Bush's signing statements serve notice that he believes parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional or might violate national security.

Hmmm so Spector does not like the fact that the pres is looking out for the Constitution and National Security. Go figure.
Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan  2006-07-25 09:20||   2006-07-25 09:20|| Front Page Top

#8 All right, I'm out of a very long period of lurking to ask a question of the professors at Rantburg U.

How does this work under the idea of the separation of powers? *If* this was to pass in Congress, would we not essentially have one branch dragging another in front of the third? How can Congress undertake "judicial review" - isn't that a job of the judiciary branch? I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that this tramples all over the idea - hence my inquiry.

Further, who cares what Bush has to say? I mean, really? So he thinks part of a law may be unconstitutional - so what? That's not a binding judgement of any kind since he's not a judge. It's just his opinion - and as for those notes about things he may have to do in the interests of national security - well, hell, we're in a war, and the president has the power to execute that war, him being Commander-in-Chief and all. I'm not saying that Congress and the courts should completely stay out of his business - that probably would end up being unconstitutional - but if Bush tried some of the things Lincoln did, the Senate and the courts would doubtless be whining. And in any case, exactly why can't Congress respond to one of his signed statements? They respond to everything else . . .
Posted by The Doctor">The Doctor  2006-07-25 10:23||   2006-07-25 10:23|| Front Page Top

#9 
I'm opposed to "signing statements", period. If the President feels that a bill is bad, he should veto it. Not sign the damn thing with a caveat.

The whole friggin mess, all three Branches of the Government are all munged up by conniving politicians. The whole place needs a house cleaning and some head chopping. Christ!

-M
Posted by Manolo 2006-07-25 11:08||   2006-07-25 11:08|| Front Page Top

#10 Doctor, I think you will find that in this case the American people will overwhelm Senator Specter in such a way that both interested senators and judges shit their pants and sober up before the people are forced to act.
Posted by wxjames 2006-07-25 11:08||   2006-07-25 11:08|| Front Page Top

#11 This asshat is now a total joke in the Senate. I think the cancer ate away his brain.
Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-07-25 11:27||   2006-07-25 11:27|| Front Page Top

#12 The Doctor seems to have a pretty good grasp on the subject.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-25 11:29||   2006-07-25 11:29|| Front Page Top

#13 I really think Specter has a point. Pres can't change a law on his own whim.
Posted by texhooey">texhooey  2006-07-25 12:36||   2006-07-25 12:36|| Front Page Top

#14 The only semi-expert opinion Specter has is on Scottish Law. Not proven. Case closed. Retire.
Posted by Inspector Clueso 2006-07-25 12:53||   2006-07-25 12:53|| Front Page Top

#15 It would only be a point if the president had changed the law on his own whim. He cannot do it. He can fail to enforce the laws faithfully. The remedy is for Congress to impeach him. Otherwise, Arlen should STFU.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-25 12:59||   2006-07-25 12:59|| Front Page Top

#16 if the bills being signed may, in GWB's opinion have unconstitutional items AND specter wants to make something of it, perhaps the congress should review them before passing. last time i checked there were more lawyers in concress than in the white house and a lawyer SHOULD know how to read and interpret the law (sorry about stealing some of Joe's uppercase letters. He probably has several steamer trunks full laying around somewhere, however).
Posted by USN, ret. 2006-07-25 14:25||   2006-07-25 14:25|| Front Page Top

#17 How can Congress undertake "judicial review" - isn't that a job of the judiciary branch?

I'll take a whack at an answer: Judicial Review is the job of the Supreme Court only because the Supreme Court said so (Marbury v Madison).
Posted by eLarson 2006-07-25 16:21|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com]  2006-07-25 16:21|| Front Page Top

#18 The content of the 'signing statement' may be of interest to SCOTUS if it ever gets that far.
Posted by  KBK 2006-07-25 19:37||   2006-07-25 19:37|| Front Page Top

#19 
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the
sinktrap. Further violations may result in
banning.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2006-07-25 20:06|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2006-07-25 20:06|| Front Page Top

#20 I'm opposed to "signing statements", period. If the President feels that a bill is bad, he should veto it. Not sign the damn thing with a caveat.

It would appear to be a de facto line-item veto.
Posted by eLarson 2006-07-25 21:39|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com]  2006-07-25 21:39|| Front Page Top

#21 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by Old Patriot 2006-07-25 20:06|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2006-07-25 20:06|| Front Page Top

20:06 Old Patriot
00:05 C-Low
00:05 Oldspook
23:53 Fordesque
23:46 Fordesque
23:04 gorb
23:03 Adriane
22:59 long hair republican
22:50 Glains Threrese9277
22:44 Hupuse Snamp6542
22:42 Eric Jablow
22:27 Hupuse Snamp6542
22:27 Griper Whegum8464
22:24 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:23 Scott R
22:23 Griper Whegum8464
22:21 Barbara Skolaut
22:18 Glenmore
22:14 Chomble Grolutch3348
22:13 Hupuse Snamp6542
22:12 tu3031
22:11 Champ Angeger5024
22:08 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:03 DoDo









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com