On Signing Statements: Scalia Ends Democracy

[kpete]

.............FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, A SUPREME COURT OPINION HAS RECOGNIZED THE JUDICIAL VALIDITY OF A PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENT.

.....................

You see, previously, courts had almost never discussed--and, if I'm not mistaken, the Supreme Court had never discussed--the issue of the validity of Presidential signing statements, because--surprise surprise--they have no Constitutional basis. It's right there in my Pocket Constitution.

Well, Scalia has access to the same Pocket Constitution that I do. But apparently, he sees something different in it. Because despite the fact that the American system of law is based on the precedents of English common law, and despite the fact that there is no precedent whatsoever for using Presidential signing statements to interpret specific provision of law passed by Congress, Scalia saw fit to upbraid the majority decision. For what, you may ask? FOR FAILING TO TAKE THE PRESIDENT'S SIGNING STATEMENT INTO ACCOUNT:

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 ousted jurisdiction over pending cases.

more:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10612

[Kagemusha]

1. Maybe the court ignores it because the President's opinion on this

doesn't actually matter?

Or shouldn't, because all he gets to do is sign or veto, he doesn't draft the stuff? Oh but, that's the old constitution. The new constitution is the constitution strictly interpreted... to suit the President.

Well it's the only way I can reconcile the two concepts.

[ellenfl]

10. don't you mean the 'king'? eom

[BillZBubb]

2. This is why the Democrats, first thing when they get a majority

must pass a resolution stating that any president who fails in his sworn constitutional duty to uphold the laws that congress passes will be impeached. Signing statements are not worth the ink used to make them. They have no force of law.

The Supreme Court can't decide this issue. The congress can by removing any president stupid enough to follow a signing statement rather than the law.

The ball of freedom is in congress's court.

[Olney Blue]

3. And its never been more important to take back Congress.

[femrap]

4. All I want is Subpoena Power. nt

[hootinholler]

9. Signing statements lead to interpretation of the law...

and thus lead to having the force of law when regulations are promulgated.

For instance when signing the tax code, the President makes a signing statement about how some point of the law should be interpreted. This does not in any way justify ignoreing the law, which Bush's statements effectively say they will do in some cases.

So in a normal administration they work well, in a dysfunctional one, they are, well, dysfunctional, but will be interpreted by those responsible for implementing the law via the regulation mechanism until the the regulations are challenged in the courts and defeated.

Just my simplistic take on it.

-Hoot

[greiner3]

11. And while not an attack on you;

The next president, one of bush's twins for all I know' would treat that law with contempt just like bush is doing with the hundreds already. What's needed is for a junta... Well, not where they can read this anyway.

[Rex]

5. Conflict of interest means nothing to Scalia and Repukes in general.

It was obvious during Bush vs Gore. To bad no one stood up and forced the issue before all the damage to America. 6 years of destruction, sad.

[Cobalt-60]

6. They don't matter

He can pile the signing statements next to his copies of Jughead comics.
As an american citizen he can churn out any printed drek he likes.
GOP possession of the congress is the only reason they haven't been returned to sender.
And this is about to end, hopefully for another 50 years.

[me b zola]

7. **WARNING** Debbie Downer reply

This (Scalia) is one of the reasons that I am very pessimistic for our nation's future. There are now four fascists on the SC, with one and a half years of the bush* cabal's reign of terror to go. As it stands now, I believe that under the best of circumstances it would take 2-3 generations for us to reclaim our Constitutional representative government. If we lose one more SC Justice before bush*s reign of terror ends, I can't imagine how long it will take to become America again.

bush* isn't done with us yet, and I am fearful for our future as a nation.

[mcscajun]

8. hate to pile another downer on your downer. but it's 2.5 years.

Countdown to Inauguration Day

910 days 14 hours 38 minutes, to be precise.

http://www.theofficialcountdown.com/

[greiner3]

12. So you remember the opening few scenes in;

The Pelican Brief? Now what was that sub-plot Julia found herself mixed up with?

[WilliamPitt]

13. Scary, but not imminently destructive

This was the minority dissent from Hamden. Minority dissents have no force or power of law. Sometimes they are used to craft arguments in later cases, and sometimes the opinions espoused win those later cases, but for the moment, this Scalia opinion is worth exactly as much as the paper it is printed on.

Hell, if minority dissents had the force of law, Gore would be president. See: minority dissent, Bush v. Gore, 12/13/00