Globe/Charlie Savage: Scalia dissent gives 'signing statements' more heft

[Rose Siding]

Savage broke the story about Bush's 750 signing statements

WASHINGTON -- 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.

President Bush has used signing statements on numerous occasions to assert his own interpretation of laws passed by Congress, often reserving the right to ignore certain statutes. Many legal scholars have said the signing statements should have no legal effect, because the president merely signs or vetoes laws and is not involved in writing them.

But 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.
.....
Legal specialists also noted that Alito was among the justices who backed Scalia's citation to a signing statement. In 1986, 20 years before Bush put him on the Supreme Court, Alito helped pioneer the strategy of using signing statements as a way to increase the power of the White House.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/15/scalias_dissent_gives_signing_statements_more_heft/

[msongs]

1. signing statements are unconstitutional - scalia has to go nt

[aquart]

2. that would require a functioning judicial system.

and a functioning Congress. Seen any lately?

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. As soon as we take back congress

we need to impeach Scalia and Alito.