Judiciary Hearing on Signing Statements THREAD #2

[Norquist Nemesis]

Link for webcast: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1969 (click on webcast button)
Link to Thread #1: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1515659&mesg_id=1515659

[Solly Mack]

1. Thanks, NN!!!!

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. No, thanks to YOU!

You're doing a fantastic job of summarizing and keeping up! :applause:

Interesting how the only Senators on this committee to show up are Di-Fi, Feingold, Kennedy, Specter and Cornyn. Ungh. And Di-Fi/Feingold pretty much gave statements, no Q&A.

Also, where's Leahy????

[Solly Mack]

12. Where was the rest of the committee? (I'm wondering too)

I was disappointed that all present didn't ask questions.

Still...I found it interesting if a bit frustrating at times.

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. Specter still asking about FISA oversight

(still having some trouble with the feed and the sound quality)

[rodeodance]

4. specter is all show and no go!

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. Wish Leahy was there!

Where is he???

BTW, here's his written statement about it: http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=1969&wit_id=2629

[rodeodance]

5. k

[rodeodance]

6. n

[Solly Mack]

8. electronic surveillance

Constitution limits kinds of authorization that can be given

Congress can put limitations on government for intelligence gathering

some things inherent within the office of the executive that allows them to protect certain information (Yoo)

quoting federalist papers....public protection is better preserved by executive power...but said power is not unlimited

(speaking on inherent article 2 powers)

That's it...the hearing is over

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

9. That was all of it???? eom

[rodeodance]

10. good article here also of this issue

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1508289

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. Yes, thanks!

Hadn't had a chance to read it yet and thank Dogday. :)

[Norquist Nemesis]

11. Adjourned.

Well, that was a waste of time! :argh:

Three Dems showed up (Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold), and pretty much only for the first part with Bush's DOJ rep. Kennedy was the only one who tried to get some answers to questions.

Cornyn stepped in trying to emulate Orrin Hatch (as usual), then scuttled out when the second panel was called.

Infuriating!

[rodeodance]

15. but now specter can say he stood up to Bush!! crapola

[SharonRB]

17. No wonder the webcast button doesn't work anymore

That was an awfully short hearing!

[rodeodance]

14. Bush defends 'signing statements' (in LBN)

Tue Jun-27-06 10:34 AM
Original message
Bush defends 'signing statements' Updated at 10:34 AM


http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=69...

Bush defends 'signing statements'


WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House today defended President Bush’s prolific use of bill signing statements, saying they help him uphold the Constitution and defend the nation’s security.

“There’s this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he’s not,” said Bush’s press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. “It’s important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.”

Snow spoke as Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings on Bush’s use of bill signing statements saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and consitutional grounds. Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passsed by Congress — including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.

...

A Justice Department lawyer defended Bush’s statements.

“Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress’ response to those events,” said Justice Department lawyer Michelle Boardman. “The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11.”

“Congress has been more active, the president has been more active,” she added. “The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute.”

[Solly Mack]

16. Yeah, right. He's upholding the Constitution when he allows torture

That's the ticket...torture is good for the constitution and it is unconstitutional to ban it.

You betcha!

Unreal

and when the Congress takes issue with Bush for allowing torture...that's a sign the separation of powers is working.

Un-fucking-real

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

18. Isn't that why we have courts ?

“It’s important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.”