So what can * use like signing orders to circumvent the SC?

Skidmore

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-29-06 11:07 AM
Original message

So what can * use like signing orders to circumvent the SC?

Will he get Congress to pass some law that is sorta in line with the ruling and then turn around and sign it with some sort of "yeah, but" attached.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OKNancy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-29-06 11:09 AM
Response to Original message

1. No, he'll try to get COngress to write

legislation to permit it. He won't need any signing orders.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mandate My Ass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-29-06 11:09 AM
Response to Original message

2. No he uses signing statements to get around Congress

Edited on Thu Jun-29-06 11:09 AM by Mandate My Ass

He uses Congress to get around the courts, and as Russ Feingold says, he has usurped the power of the other two co-equal branches and uses them to expand the executive to act as all three.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

smoogatz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-29-06 11:10 AM
Response to Original message

3. I don't think there's any way he can directly contravene a SCOTUS

decision. But he can (and will) apply the narrowest possible interpretation of the ruling, and he (and Rove et al) will also once again go on the warpath against "activist judges" putting national security at risk in a time of war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Recursion

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-29-06 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #3

4. Sure there is

There's a very easy way to contravene a SCOTUS decision: ignore it.

Andrew Jackson did it.

I put money on * doing it: "As commander in chief, I have final authority on the disposition of enemy combatants detained by US forces, regardless of any judicial rulings, blah blah blah".

The interesting question is what will happen then. My guess is, nothing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

smoogatz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-29-06 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #4

6. I'd be genuinely surprised if he did that.

If that ain't a constitutional crisis, I don't know what is. I doubt that these tribunals would be worth the world of shit Bush could find himself in, especially if the House flips this fall. But hey, I never thought he'd invade Iraq without the Security Council, either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

malaise

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-29-06 11:34 AM
Response to Original message

5. Clearly that's the Santorum plan

He's on MSNBC now

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dogday

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-29-06 11:54 AM
Response to Original message

7. His puppets are all too happy to

dance as he pull the strings... Sorry sad bunch of fools....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 16th 2024, 12:25 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.