Pelosi to sue Bush over use of signing statments

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10743.html

In order to hear an argument, a federal court would have to grant what is known as “standing,” meaning that lawmakers would have to show that Bush is willfully ignoring a bill Congress passed and that he signed into law.

The House would have to demonstrate what is called “injury in fact.” A court might accept the case if “it is clear that the legislature has exhausted its ability to do anything more,” a former general counsel to the House of Representatives, Stanley Brand, said.

Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 20:32 (eighteen years ago)

I wonder if they'd have to try this in the supreme court, one of whose members came up with the idea during the Reagan years

kingfish, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 20:34 (eighteen years ago)

Also right wing bloggers mad about this be backpeddling since Gingrich did it apparently.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzz/Suing_the_President

Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 20:34 (eighteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_Statement

Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 20:44 (eighteen years ago)

I am very much a Constitutionalist. I believe in that document. I believe in what it stands for. And I don't dislike Nancy Pelosi because she's a Democrat, but rather because she seems to have forgotten how important the Constitution is.

UPDATE II: Jay Bullock has pointed out in the comments incidents where Republicans have done the same thing Pelosi is doing now. So, I will rescind my precedent comment, but I won't deny that what Pelosi is doing is wrong. It was wrong when Gingrich did it, wrong when Hastert did it and is just as wrong now. Hopefully Jay, being a teacher and dealing with kids all the time, knows that two (or three) wrongs don't make a right. ;)



Constitutionalist is major lolz here because signing statements as methods of subverting legislative intent seem pretty indefensible.

Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 20:46 (eighteen years ago)

haha what do you mean, aren't you familiar with the Constitution's "Signing Statement" provision?

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 20:48 (eighteen years ago)

Yea I think that was too complicated for 6th grade ;)

Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 20:48 (eighteen years ago)

Iam very much a Constitutionalist. I believe in that document. I believe in what it stands for. And I don't dislike Nancy Pelosi because she's a Democrat, but rather because she seems to have forgotten how important the Constitution is.

^ STILL AWESOME

Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 20:48 (eighteen years ago)

http://legionathleticcamp.com/upload/images/judo_clipart.jpg

Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 20:50 (eighteen years ago)

so not gonna happen

remy bean, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 21:00 (eighteen years ago)

true - the likelihood of a lawsuit getting through the courts in the current climate seems low

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 21:01 (eighteen years ago)

more likely than impeachment!

Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 21:10 (eighteen years ago)

Scuttlebutt has it that they're working on reinstating habeus corpus, too, which I'm calling my reps about.

kingfish, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 21:22 (eighteen years ago)

Nice to know that the actions of Gingrich can be used to validate whatever Pelosi's up to.

Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 21:26 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.joshreads.com/images/07/05/i070509famcirc.jpg

Abbott, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 21:27 (eighteen years ago)

what are you on about, don?

J.D., Wednesday, 9 May 2007 23:49 (eighteen years ago)

Pepsi to sue Bush over use of signing statments

jhøshea, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 23:52 (eighteen years ago)

pelolsi

gershy, Thursday, 10 May 2007 02:43 (eighteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.