Reply #25: Yes! And connect it to Bush adding signing statement to Anti-torture Act! [View All]

[Wordie]

Here's why this is so important!

Bush's signing statement on the Anti-torture Act effectively over-ruled the will of the Congress. Here's the text of the statement he added:

``The executive branch shall construe'' the law ``in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president . . . as commander in chief and consistent with the limitations of judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks,'' he said in a signing statement.

The law that was sent to the President had wide support on both sides of the aisle. It was also supported by the majority of Americans, who are disgusted with the idea that our country would engage in torture.

But Bush over-ruled the legislature, adding his own interpretation through the signing statement, a statement which clearly ran counter to the intent of the law. This is an insult to the Senator's important place in our government, and an assault on the balance of power that the framer's of our Constitution wisely provided.

Alito, if confirmed, would be a referee in determining the constitutionality of such acts, should they come before him on the Supreme Court. Alito's writings and speeches make it clear that he finds signing statements perfectly acceptable, so we must assume that he would decide in favor of maintaining them. We have no other way to judge his philosophy, as he refused to answer questions regarding the constitutionality of laws, saying that those issues might be ones to later come before him if he is confirmed. Therefore, the Senators, even the Republicans, MUST vote against him, to preserve the legitimate constitutional powers of the legislature!

One question I have... The supporters of Alito have made much of how Alito has the recommendation of the American Bar Association, but it occured to me tonight to ask whether he had ever, in his judicial career, ruled upon issues regarding the authority of the president. I don't think it is likely that he has. Isn't it only the Supreme Court itself that would rule on such issues? If I am correct, it makes the Bar Associations recommendation moot, as they were unable to evaluate his performance in this highly important area, since he simply didn't have any. We have, therefore, only his statements to go by, and he has made many in favor of increased presidential power. We cannot risk putting this guy on the SC bench!

And all your ideas are excellent. I've been saying the same thing, but in somewhat different words. I hope there are democratic leaders who are thinking along the same lines!