May 6, 2006
-
Linkage
And read this one, too. I haven’t yammered much here about Bush’s 750 ‘signing statments,’ which is where he signs a law into existence and then states in writing that he has no intention of fulfilling them. But I should. There’s also that Scalito character they put on the Supreme Court, because even though Bush refuses to acknowledge the power of the legislative branch, he sees the power of the judicial. Scalito thinks ‘signing statements’ are valid when it comes to interpreting the laws so signed, and so will argue to protect his dear President.
Comments (2)
You need to click around a lot to get to examples of what Digby was talking about – but damn, that’s some scary stuff.
For a while, I had the last line ‘It’s the end of America if this crap continues’ at the end of that post. I deleted it because it didn’t communicate what I really meant, and just sounded too shrill. But the truth is that this is a constitutional crisis, and if it’s allowed to stand then any President in the future will be able to pull this shit as well. It will be the end of American democracy as we know it; someone might try to argue that what follows will be better, but that’s not the discussion we’re having.
Back when the first USAPATRIOT act passed, a lot of people, myself included, made allusion to Nazi Germany’s Enabling Act by comparison, and we were right to do so. The justification given for all these transgressions by Bush have to do with a vaguely-defined ‘war on terrorism,’ just like the Enabling Act.
I hate to sound shrill, but it’s the only rational response.
Comments are closed.