No talk heard "like this from the legal establishment since Watergate."

[DeepModem Mom]

Philadelphia Inquirer: Dick Polman's America
Bush and the rule of law, next chapter
Monday, July 24, 2006


It has been clear for a long time that President Bush doesn’t like lawyers – unless they’re on his payroll, crafting arguments for the unfettered exercise of executive power....So he undoubtedly will dislike the blue-ribbon report released...by the American Bar Association, which assails him as a threat to democracy, “a threat to the rule of law,” and as a president who disrespects “our constitutional system of separation of powers.” Most likely he’ll just ignore it, but I happen to think this report will be of interest to millions of his fellow citizens.

It’s interesting for a number of reasons. First, it arrives just two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court (more lawyers) decreed that Bush can’t simply do whatever he wants in violation of international law and the separation of powers.

Second, it has been authored by a bipartisan ABA task force that includes a number of notables from the conservative camp, such as Bruce Fein (who held two high-ranking Justice Department posts under Ronald Reagan), Mickey Edwards (former House Republican leader from 1977 to 1992, and a founding trustee of the Heritage Foundation), not to mention former FBI director William Sessions, who served under the first George Bush.

And third, it targets one of the most compelling – yet unsexy and therefore largely overlooked – issues in the growing debate over whether Bush is engaged in a dangerous power grab. It deals with Bush’s frequent use of “signing statements,” which often assert, in so many dry words, that the president really isn’t required to obey the bills that he is signing into law....

***

....these pillars of the legal establishment are arguing that this particular president is potentially wreaking havoc with the Constitution, and that the only way to thwart him is for Congress to take drastic action that could put it on a collision course with the White House. I haven’t heard talk like this from the legal establishment since Richard Nixon's executive excesses during Watergate....

http://dickpolman.blogspot.com/2006/07/bush-and-rule-of-law-next-chapter.html

[Lindacooks]

1. And it's about time too.

[TomInTib]

2. The way I see it, if Congress passes a bill regarding this, * will just

attach a signing statement to it.

[TripeOmatic]

10. I see you're using Kurt Vonnegut's notation for *'s - from

Breakfast of Champions. Is that now 'mainstream' notation? LOL

[TomInTib]

11. Actually, I use * because I cannot bear to type the bastard's name.

[Buns_of_Fire]

12. Yes (among many others ) :-)

And welcome!

P.S. I daresay that I think nowhere else on the internets will you find so MANY pithy and descriptive ways of referring to The-Putz-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named as you will here!

[TripeOmatic]

13. But I see so many other four-letter words.

I guess this one beats them all - LOL.

[cosmicdot]

15. check this list

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Nicknames_for_George_W._Bush

* the asterisk that will be forever next to his name for stealing the presidency in 2000

** the 2nd asterisk for 2004

but, check that list ... I wasn't expecting 177 entries
:)

[TripeOmatic]

17. Well, Vonnegut labeled his drawing of an ass-terisk as 'a$$ole'

which made me think it may have been an apt reference. No, that's not a$$-olé! LOL
It's a great list.

[napi21]

3. YES, and I' very glad this report hasn't just disappeared from the

media! I know it was reported yesterday on CNN & MSNBC several times, and Lou Dobbs has the Chairman of the ABA panel on his show tonight! Dobbs also mentioned that Spector has suggested that Congress SUE the President for his misdeeds. I'm not really looking for Spector to follow through with that, but I'm sure glad to see it remain in the news!

[Totally Committed]

4. If I thought it would make a bit of difference, I'd be thrilled...

This administration doesn't give a rat's a** about the rule of law... unless it has to do with a Democrat.

TC

[AndyA]

5. Watergate? This makes Watergate look like a normal government function.

What we have now is much, much worse than a little spying, a little lying, and a little coverup. What we have now is treason, criminal behavior, and complete lack of respect for the Constitution.

I hope SOMEONE with power takes notice and DOES SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

[femrap]

20. I think that means us....

we the people must assume our power.

[babylonsister]

6. When will these men be taken seriously? Who's listening? Nom. nt

[EST]

7. When * and his criminal cabal were trying to sell us and the

senate on his nominees for scotus, they went on and on about how Roberts and Scalito were recommended by the ABA and how it was the "gold standard."
This morning, on c-span, the mentally deranged r/w impresarios were not happy with the ABA, with at least one labeling them the usual 'liberal tool' idiocy. The human psyche must be very precariously balanced, indeed.

[hootinholler]

8. Where's the Grand Jury? K&R n/t

[earth mom]

9. Do we dare get our hopes up?

Fingers crossed if nothing more.....

[Hissyspit]

14. IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY NOW!

(Pardon the yelling. Got my marching mojo on right now.)

[Pacifist Patriot]

16. I do not follow U.S. Corporate media. Is this a hot story for the masses?

[DeepModem Mom]

19. It was covered after the ABA press conference, but...

there's been little follow-up except for editorials in the print press. Specter's promised legislation should get some coverage.

[Seabiscuit]

18. This also focuses a spotlight on the corrupt Republican Congress

which although it has witnesses these and many more excesses by Bush over the years has looked the other way and done nothing beyond rubber-stamping the excesses.

Any Congress with a conscience and sense of duty would have impeached the bastids long ago.

I find it interesting that the ABA is basically telling Congress to get off its fat, corrupt, complacent ass and DO SOMETHING - i.e., DO THEIR JOB for a change!