The part about the signing statements sent me into a rage. Sure I knew about them and all, but it still made me so damned angry to think about what bush is basically saying to congress and to us. He's basically saying, fu*k you, I'll do as I damned well please and there's not a thing you can do about it.

F bushy for using signing statements as a line item veto when the Supreme Court has said the line item veto is unconstitutional

..... There wasn't a true crime story on Abrams? Gasp this was actually legitimate news. What is going on over there? First Rachel Maddow has a pilot and now two hardcore news types discussing the circumventing of the Constitution and the legislative branch (ineffectual as has been). Bravo MSNBC.

robbymack @ 6:

..... There wasn't a true crime story on Abrams? Gasp this was actually legitimate news. What is going on over there? First Rachel Maddow has a pilot and now two hardcore news types discussing the circumventing of the Constitution and the legislative branch (ineffectual as has been). Bravo MSNBC.

Sorry, but someone mentioned last night that Rachel Maddow did not get the show.

I think Abrams has seen the writing on Keith's wall. He sees the viewers are tired of constant republican ass kissing and we are flocking to any show that will give us at least the other side of every story. We know the republican side by heart since that's pretty much all we have been shown and told about for the last seven years.

As for a "nationwide labor strike" (comment #3) Have you any idea what that would do to the country? It wouldn't bother the administration one bit, but the rest of the country would be in a lot of pain.

Going?

Is this another impeachable offense? Nancy, set the table.

pissed off patricia @ 10:

I think Abrams has seen the writing on Keith's wall. He sees the viewers are tired of constant republican ass kissing and we are flocking to any show that will give us at least the other side of every story. We know the republican side by heart since that's pretty much all we have been shown and told about for the last seven years.

As for a "nationwide labor strike" (comment #3) Have you any idea what that would do to the country? It wouldn't bother the administration one bit, but the rest of the country would be in a lot of pain.

While i agree it would be very painful for almost everyone i think the Administration would go apeshit.

A national strike would cut into corporate profits like nobody's business and profit is what drives them; they live for it. A national strike would freak the living shit out of the planet because noone expects the complacency in the US to ever end.

I understand that Iran was much like we are today immeadiately before the revolution they experinced in the late 1970's.

The BIG problem is Bush's appointment of Alito & Roberts to the Supreme Court and what that means for court cases challenging Bush's use of signing statements that reach them. The two Bush appointees BOTH support an imperial presidency (unitary executive powers), along with Clarence Thomas and Anthony Scalia. That leaves only five who MIGHT rule against the principle, and heaven help us all if one of them retires any time soon -- Bush will recommend others who support his unitary executive authority.

Folks, we're trapped in real trouble, and it happened before we knew the extent of the trouble, from day one of Bush's presidency. I fear that America is changed forever from a democratic Constitutional government to an out-and-out dictatorship -- I don't think any of the Democratic frontrunner presidential candidates are interested in decreasing "unitary executive powers". It is too much power for anyone, even the most benign, because individuals have only one world-view that they think is good and beneficial. It necessarily omits other equally-valid perspectives, and that's the value of democracy based on a Constitution intended to keep political power balanced among all perspectives.

a person @ 11:

xoites defends Constitution @ 8:

robbymack @ 6:

..... There wasn't a true crime story on Abrams? Gasp this was actually legitimate news. What is going on over there? First Rachel Maddow has a pilot and now two hardcore news types discussing the circumventing of the Constitution and the legislative branch (ineffectual as has been). Bravo MSNBC.

Sorry, but someone mentioned last night that Rachel Maddow did not get the show.

Rachel Maddow didn't a show? Holy shit. She's an amazing speaker, very well educated. This country is going to hell in front of our eyes.

Rachel Maddow is and always will be an ace. George Bush on the other hand is a dumb ass - and when he opens his mouth to speak, it's evident he is a dumb ass.
MSNBC is the only news station watched in my household. Reliable - Truthful news coverage. Good going, guys.

This morning Scarborough went on another rant about torture and waterboarding. I can't tell if he is truly serious or if he is just jabbing and poking at the liberal side of his audience to get a rise out of them. If he's serious, then he's too fu*king stupid to have a tv show. Anyone who wants to watch a total conservative lunatic at that time of the morning can switch right over to FOX and they probably do.

Joe rants and raves, Mika sighs too much and over all the show could be canceled tomorrow as far as I'm concerned.

America, please never select as our President a lazy spoiled petulant "daddy help my dumb ass out of another mess" mother fucker. We entrusted to lead this nation a lying, drunk, dope addict who has never worked a day in his shitty life! Where is Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?

And where are the f___ing democrats in all of this? Now where to be found. They are too busy trying to cover up their cave ins to this asshole President. What is happening to this country? I just don't understand any more. What a bunch of cowardly morons.

the question is, what is the legal standing of a signing statement? or rather, each signing statement. it's clear the president can add them, what isn't clear is that he can simply negate the intent of the law.

it's high time to mount a challenge to each and every one of these statements. because even after bush and cheney are impeached (it's not too late and still important) these subversions cannot be allowed to stand.

nancy? henry? harry?

anyone?

Speaking of bush and justice. Today they believe is the day when bush will veto the SCHIP bill.

And a Merry Christmas to you too, Mr George Scrooge. Sleep tight tonight knowing that there are sick kids out in our country you could have helped had you not been such a heartless old bastard.

The next president should establish a new department. It should be called The Department of Cleaning Stuff Up. The people in this new dept. should be in charge of doing nothing else but undoing all the stuff that bush has done with his signing statement hand. Then they should put the Constitution back together.

It will actually be very interesting to see what Alito and Scalia think of "the Unitary Executive" idea once Hillary becomes president.... we'll see how firm their principles are then.

pissed off patricia @ 2:

The part about the signing statements sent me into a rage. Sure I knew about them and all, but it still made me so damned angry to think about what bush is basically saying to congress and to us. He's basically saying, fu*k you, I'll do as I damned well please and there's not a thing you can do about it.

Except IMPEACH which Congress is reluctant to do. I know we don't have the numbers in the Senate to pass impeachment. If impeachment begins now, it will force the Republican Senators to take a stand and 22 Republican Senators are up for re-election next year and voting to protect this president and vice president is only going to get the support of the 28%'s.

Dr. Acula @ 36:

Dan Abrams continues his fantastic series started yesterday
Huh?

Segment 1: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/11/bush-league-justice/
Segment 2: above.

you can voice your pleasure with this new segment on msnbc at

viewerservices@msnbc.com; generalcomments@feedback.msnbc.com; phil.griffin@nbcuni.com; bill.wolff@nbcuni.com

let them know they are doing something good for a change.

The Comeback Kid, Galluping along.

37% approve of Bush, 22% of Congress.

Giddy- yup, W.

Coffins draped in flags @ 37:

pissed off patricia @ 2:

The part about the signing statements sent me into a rage. Sure I knew about them and all, but it still made me so damned angry to think about what bush is basically saying to congress and to us. He's basically saying, fu*k you, I'll do as I damned well please and there's not a thing you can do about it.

Except IMPEACH which Congress is reluctant to do. I know we don't have the numbers in the Senate to pass impeachment. If impeachment begins now, it will force the Republican Senators to take a stand and 22 Republican Senators are up for re-election next year and voting to protect this president and vice president is only going to get the support of the 28%'s.

Even if Congress grew a set and impeached Bush and Cheney, he'd just issue a signing statement saying impeachment infringes on his constitutional authority as commander in chief and he can therefore ignore it. And, knowing our Congress, they'd just whimper, "Oh, okay," and slink off into the night.

Excuse the language, but we are in the middle of what amounts to a constitutional circle jerk.

I think there is a point that wasn't made about the prior presidents signing statements. I could be wrong but as I understand it the prior presidents signing statements would assign a sub department under a cabinet member the responsibility for enforcement of a bill. Never as part of a signing statement was there instructions that part of a bill be ignored or for the purpose of enforcement pick out the parts the president likes and only enforce them.

rasta @ 41:

you can voice your pleasure with this new segment on msnbc at

viewerservices@msnbc.com; generalcomments@feedback.msnbc.com; phil.griffin@nbcuni.com; bill.wolff@nbcuni.com

let them know they are doing something good for a change.

I just wrote to all four of them with the following comment, simple as it is.
"I would like to commend MSNBC for having a show like the Abrams Report. His new segment
"Bush League" is something America really needs right now. All these dirty dealings need to be
brought to the surface and shown for what they are. I'm referring to the piece about Signing Statements
This is important reporting, Keep it UP!!

I am so thankful for reporters like Dan and Keith O. They are both worthy of some kind of Award,
This is great news reporting,
Please give credit to these men.

Dennis@43 Even if your poll is accurate, 37% still sucks dickhead. But more importantly school's out, shit for brains. Sure we acknowledge that lemmings like you are left, but Bush's rep and legacy are cemented in history, so poll that cocksucker. go back under the rock from where you came instead of trying to justify this catastrophe.

pissed off patricia @ 2:

The part about the signing statements sent me into a rage. Sure I knew about them and all, but it still made me so damned angry to think about what bush is basically saying to congress and to us. He's basically saying, fu*k you, I'll do as I damned well please and there's not a thing you can do about it.

then i guess hes finally telling the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John Dean had this to say about Bush's signing statements:

Jan. 13, 2006. ....Impact Of Presidential Signing Statements

The immediate impact of signing statements, of course, is felt within the Executive Branch: As I noted, Bush's statements will likely have a direct influence on how that branch's agencies and departments interpret and enforce the law.

It is remarkable that Bush believes he can ignore a law, and protect himself, through a signing statement. Despite the McCain Amendment's clear anti-torture stance, the military may feel free to use torture anyway, based on the President's attempt to use a signing statement to wholly undercut the bill.

This kind of expansive use of a signing statement presents not only Presentment Clause problems, but also clashes with the Constitutional implication that a veto is the President's only and exclusive avenue to prevent a bill's becoming law. The powers of foot-dragging and resistance-by-signing-statement, are not mentioned in the Constitution alongside the veto, after all. Congress wanted to impeach Nixon for impounding money he thought should not be spent. Telling Congress its laws do not apply makes Nixon's impounding look like cooperation with Congress, by comparison.

The longer term impact of signing statements is potentially grave - and is being ignored by the Bush administration. But it cannot be ignored forever. Defiance by Bush of Congressional lawmaking will come back to haunt this President.

Watergate was about abuse of power. Nixon, not unlike Bush, insisted on pushing the powers of the presidency to, and beyond, their limits. But as Nixon headed into his second term with even grander plans than he'd had in the first term, the Congress became concerned. (And for good reason.)

Bush, who has been pushing the envelope on presidential powers, is just beginning to learn what kind of Congressional blowback can result.

First, there are the leaks: People within the Executive branch become troubled by a president's overreaching. When Nixon adopted extreme measures, people within the administration began leaking. The same is now happening to Bush, for there was the leak about the use of torture. And, more recently, there was the leak as to the use of warrantless electronic surveillance on Americans.

Once the leaks start, they continue, and Congressional ire is not far behind. The overwhelming Congressional support for Senator John McCain's torture ban suggests, too, that Congress will not be happy if leaks begin to suggest the President - as his signing statement foreshadows - is already flouting the ban.

In short, Bush's signing statements, which are now going over the top, are going to cause a Congressional reaction. It is inevitable. If Republican lose control of either the House or Senate - and perhaps even if they don't, if the subject is torture or an egregious violation of civil liberties -- then the Bush/Cheney administration will wish it had not issued all those signing statements.

Indeed, the Administration may be eating its words - with Congress holding the plate out, and forcing the unconstitutional verbiage back down. That, in the end, is the only kind of torture Americans ought to countenance.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

good idea, 6 years too late

Considering how Bu$h likes to sign items so much, he can sign my *$$ while he's at it.

Dennis @ 43:

The Comeback Kid, Galluping along.

37% approve of Bush, 22% of Congress.

Giddy- yup, W.

I'm always a bit bemused when people compare Presidential and Congressional poll ratings. Ratings for Congress are seldom, if ever, high, no matter who's in charge. Individual members of Congress might have high approval ratings, but more often than not, the approval ratings for the entire body are below 50%. And there's typically not a substantial group of people who have the "We support our Congress no matter what!" attitude like there is for the president, so there's no base to keep the rating from bottoming out. For the most part, the American people seem to always have a relatively disgruntled relationship with Congress and it's always reflected in polls, so in a way the numbers are always a little deflated.

That's not the case for most presidents which is why it's a really big deal when a President spends several years with their approval ratings in the gutter. Their poll ratings more accurately represent the job they're doing and how people feel about an individual as a leader.

This is of course not to say that the American people are not unhappy with the Democratically lead Congress right now. People are pissed, but mainly because the Democrats haven't made a strong enough effort to end the war. So it's not like the people who are really upset with Congress are likely to have a positive view of the president. Those numbers are not related, and don't really reflect that somehow Bush (or the Republican party) is winning against his Democratic opponents in the court of public opinion.

I have to admit, I've been catching the first part of Dan's show lately and it's taken me by surprise. There's actually some interesting stuff on there. Whether he's taking his cues from Keith or from Tweety's failing show makes no difference to me. I'd rather watch Dan than Tweety any day. Actually, I'd rather watch anything other than Tweety these days.

anney @ 18:

The BIG problem is Bush's appointment of Alito & Roberts to the Supreme Court and what that means for court cases challenging Bush's use of signing statements that reach them. The two Bush appointees BOTH support an imperial presidency (unitary executive powers), along with Clarence Thomas and Anthony Scalia. That leaves only five who MIGHT rule against the principle, and heaven help us all if one of them retires any time soon -- Bush will recommend others who support his unitary executive authority.

Folks, we're trapped in real trouble, and it happened before we knew the extent of the trouble, from day one of Bush's presidency. I fear that America is changed forever from a democratic Constitutional government to an out-and-out dictatorship -- I don't think any of the Democratic frontrunner presidential candidates are interested in decreasing "unitary executive powers". It is too much power for anyone, even the most benign, because individuals have only one world-view that they think is good and beneficial. It necessarily omits other equally-valid perspectives, and that's the value of democracy based on a Constitution intended to keep political power balanced among all perspectives.

Actually, I think we have one thing for which we can thank Bush -- he's shown us how an immature, narcissistic and morally corrupt person can abuse the powers of the American persidency. Powers, especially "war time" powers, that we might have to examine more closely if the mouth breathers ever elect another Chimpy McFlightsuit to the office.

jasper @ 3:

Here's an idea. Quit blogging away all your anger. And organize a general nationwide labor strike until Bush and Cheney are impeached & jailed.

Or you could just waste the next 400 days mastubating on blogs.

You got the right idea. If I hadn't given up working, I'd join you.

And this is Constitutional because?????????

(And let's not argue about the meaning of 'is'.)

jasper @ 3:

Here's an idea. Quit blogging away all your anger. And organize a general nationwide labor strike until Bush and Cheney are impeached & jailed.

Or you could just waste the next 400 days mastubating on blogs.

Wow finally some real sense. Except the impeachment part I don't like. I'd like to think someone who can relieve others of their burdensome due process can receive the same four star treatment. Lets just get right to shipping them to gitmo!

I think the reason the Democrats haven't done anything yet is because they don't think they can push anything through successfully. Ultimately the legality and constitutionality of signing statements becomes a matter for the Supreme Court to decide, and right now the Democrats don't want to push it in that direction because they are afraid the Supreme Court would side with the Administration. If that happened, we would be screwed even more than we are now, because then Bush could act with impunity.

Sometimes not acting is better than forcing the issue only to have the results go against you.