Pelosi threat to sue Bush over Iraq bill

[stephanie]

:poke:

By Jonathan E. Kaplan and Elana Schor
May 09, 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.

Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.

“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching,” a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”

It is a scenario for which few lawmakers have planned. Indicating that he may consider attaching a signing statement to a future supplemental spending measure, Bush last week wrote in his veto message, “This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency.”

A lawsuit could be seen as part of the Democrats’ larger political strategy to pressure — through a series of votes on funding the war — congressional Republicans to break with Bush over Iraq.

Democrats floated other ideas during yesterday’s weekly caucus meeting. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) suggested that the House consider a measure to rescind the 2002 authorization for the war in Iraq. Several senators and Democratic presidential candidates recently have proposed that idea.

“There was a ripple around the room” in support of the idea, said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).

In the 1970s, congressional Democrats tried to get the courts to force President Nixon to stop bombing in Cambodia. The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.
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.

Lawmakers have tried to sue presidents in the past for taking what they consider to be illegal military action, but courts have rejected such suits.

A law professor at Georgetown Law Center, Nicholas Rosenkranz, said Bush is likely to express his view on the constitutionality of the next supplemental in writing. Whether Bush has leeway to treat any provision of the supplemental as advisory, however, depends on the wording Congress chooses, Rosenkranz added.

Bruce Fein, who was a Justice Department official under President Reagan, said Democrats seeking to challenge a signing statement would have to try to give themselves standing before filing a lawsuit.

“You’d need an authorizing resolution in the House and Senate … to seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court that the president, by issuing a signing statement, is denying Congress’s obligation to [hold a veto override vote],” Fein said.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced legislation to that end last year, but the idea of a lawsuit has yet to gain traction in Congress.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that “the odds would be good” for a signing statement on the next supplemental, considering that Bush has in the past shown a predilection for excusing his administration from contentious bills. But Levin did not offer any clues as to how Democratic leaders would counter Bush.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-threat-to-sue-bush-over-iraq-bill-2007-05-08.html

[Kathianne]

My guess, her statement is a result of the Senate being unwilling to go along with the House. So...

Bush should skip the signing statement, take it directly to the people.

Whoops, then he would HAVE to TRUST the people to get it, something he seems unwilling to do. To his detriment.

[Gunny]

:poke:

By Jonathan E. Kaplan and Elana Schor
May 09, 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.

Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.

“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching,” a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”

It is a scenario for which few lawmakers have planned. Indicating that he may consider attaching a signing statement to a future supplemental spending measure, Bush last week wrote in his veto message, “This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency.”

A lawsuit could be seen as part of the Democrats’ larger political strategy to pressure — through a series of votes on funding the war — congressional Republicans to break with Bush over Iraq.

Democrats floated other ideas during yesterday’s weekly caucus meeting. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) suggested that the House consider a measure to rescind the 2002 authorization for the war in Iraq. Several senators and Democratic presidential candidates recently have proposed that idea.

“There was a ripple around the room” in support of the idea, said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).

In the 1970s, congressional Democrats tried to get the courts to force President Nixon to stop bombing in Cambodia. The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.
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.

Lawmakers have tried to sue presidents in the past for taking what they consider to be illegal military action, but courts have rejected such suits.

A law professor at Georgetown Law Center, Nicholas Rosenkranz, said Bush is likely to express his view on the constitutionality of the next supplemental in writing. Whether Bush has leeway to treat any provision of the supplemental as advisory, however, depends on the wording Congress chooses, Rosenkranz added.

Bruce Fein, who was a Justice Department official under President Reagan, said Democrats seeking to challenge a signing statement would have to try to give themselves standing before filing a lawsuit.

“You’d need an authorizing resolution in the House and Senate … to seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court that the president, by issuing a signing statement, is denying Congress’s obligation to [hold a veto override vote],” Fein said.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced legislation to that end last year, but the idea of a lawsuit has yet to gain traction in Congress.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that “the odds would be good” for a signing statement on the next supplemental, considering that Bush has in the past shown a predilection for excusing his administration from contentious bills. But Levin did not offer any clues as to how Democratic leaders would counter Bush.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-threat-to-sue-bush-over-iraq-bill-2007-05-08.html

I hope the Dem's are keeping track of all the precedents they keep setting. Taking an election to court. Now threatening to take the President to court.

Just keeps sliding further and further into the mud.

[loosecannon]

My guess, her statement is a result of the Senate being unwilling to go along with the House. So...

Bush should skip the signing statement, take it directly to the people.

Whoops, then he would HAVE to TRUST the people to get it, something he seems unwilling to do. To his detriment.

And your guess would be wrong.

The pres has written more than 500 signing statements in his term. More than any other pres by a longshot.

The general gist of signing statements, which have no established basis in law, is to say that the law does not apply to the pres for x reason.

The most enlightening example was the McCain anti torture bill which Bush and Cheney vigorously opposed until it was clear that Congress would over rule Bush's veto if he vetoed it.

So Bush endorsed it. Then two minutes after he signed the McCain anti torture bill he signed a signing statement disavowing the bill that he just signed into law.

The reason why Pelosi made the statement that she made is that she knows that Bush will simply not adhere to any law that binds Bush to withdraw the troops, even if he signs it.

His word is no good. He will sign it and also sign a meaningless statement that says he doesn't believe that he is bound to what he just signed.

The ONLY remedy is the supreme court, which REQUIRES congress to sue the pres.

[Kathianne]

And your guess would be wrong.

The pres has written more than 500 signing statements in his term. More than any other pres by a longshot.

The general gist of signing statements, which have no established basis in law, is to say that the law does not apply to the pres for x reason.

The most enlightening example was the McCain anti torture bill which Bush and Cheney vigorously opposed until it was clear that Congress would over rule Bush's veto if he vetoed it.

So Bush endorsed it. Then two minutes after he signed the McCain anti torture bill he signed a signing statement disavowing the bill that he just signed into law.

The reason why Pelosi made the statement that she made is that she knows that Bush will simply not adhere to any law that binds Bush to withdraw the troops, even if he signs it.

His word is no good. He will sign it and also sign a meaningless statement that says he doesn't believe that he is bound to what he just signed.

The ONLY remedy is the supreme court, which REQUIRES congress to sue the pres.


You wrote a whole bunch of nothing regarding my post. Loser.

[Yurt]

I hope the Dem's are keeping track of all the precedents they keep setting. Taking an election to court. Now threatening to take the President to court.

Just keeps sliding further and further into the mud.

Absolutely. This shrillness has to stop. Both parties.

[Yurt]

And your guess would be wrong.

The pres has written more than 500 signing statements in his term. More than any other pres by a longshot.

The general gist of signing statements, which have no established basis in law, is to say that the law does not apply to the pres for x reason.

The most enlightening example was the McCain anti torture bill which Bush and Cheney vigorously opposed until it was clear that Congress would over rule Bush's veto if he vetoed it.

So Bush endorsed it. Then two minutes after he signed the McCain anti torture bill he signed a signing statement disavowing the bill that he just signed into law.

The reason why Pelosi made the statement that she made is that she knows that Bush will simply not adhere to any law that binds Bush to withdraw the troops, even if he signs it.

His word is no good. He will sign it and also sign a meaningless statement that says he doesn't believe that he is bound to what he just signed.

The ONLY remedy is the supreme court, which REQUIRES congress to sue the pres.

Do you have any proof? And don't forget non justiciable issues...

[loosecannon]

You wrote a whole bunch of nothing regarding my post. Loser.

Agreed, I should have just posted a new post without quoting.

Thanks for setting the record straight, Loser.

[loosecannon]

Do you have any proof? And don't forget non justiciable issues...

Yurt, the bolded sections hardly seem like the ones you would sensibly be asking for proof of.

I know why Pelosi made her statement. I don't care what you believe.

And as to the exact minutes between the signing of the McCain antitorture bill and the signing statement that negated it, I was posting metaphorically.

It might have been 2 minutes and 4 seconds. Maybe Bush had to sharpen his pen.

[Kathianne]

Agreed, I should have just posted a new post without quoting.

Thanks for setting the record straight, Loser.
You truly do not understand debate, but whatever.

[manu1959]

Yurt, the bolded sections hardly seem like the ones you would sensibly be asking for proof of.

I know why Pelosi made her statement. I don't care what you believe.

And as to the exact minutes between the signing of the McCain antitorture bill and the signing statement that negated it, I was posting metaphorically.

It might have been 2 minutes and 4 seconds. Maybe Bush had to sharpen his pen.

i am sure you will cut the same slack to others that you are claiming here..........

[loosecannon]

I hope the Dem's are keeping track of all the precedents they keep setting. Taking an election to court. Now threatening to take the President to court.

Just keeps sliding further and further into the mud.

Bush's crew took the election to court, consult Bush v. Gore. Plaintiff listed first as always.

The use of signing statements is antithema to the constitution.

IF it ever gets the approval of the SC then our system of laws will become a complete facade. A ruse, a joke.

It is incumbent upon diligent lawmakers to challenge it in court so as to preserve the basic integrity of our constitution, legal system and democracy.

There are few if any more important legal issues facing todays and tommorrows Congress.

[manu1959]

pelosi can't get her way so she is threatening legal action.....

what a great leader....thought she had a mandate from the people

[manu1959]

found this while looking for something else....

al gore wanted to win something somewhere

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001870.html

too funny

[lily]

YAWN Doing a search on this article I see The Hill and Free Republic are the only ones "reporting" this big news story. Wake me up when this is a real story.

[manu1959]

YAWN Doing a search on this article I see The Hill and Free Republic are the only ones "reporting" this big news story. Wake me up when this is a real story.

ah come on it was funny......if i don't like your sources can i blow all your arguments off?

[Kathianne]

YAWN Doing a search on this article I see The Hill and Free Republic are the only ones "reporting" this big news story. Wake me up when this is a real story.
the concept of biased media would never cross your mind, I'm sure.

[loosecannon]

You truly do not understand debate, but whatever.

You simply do not understand reasonable POV. Do I mock you for it? I mean I certainly could. You are an easy target, few defenses, not much of an intellect.

But I usually ignore you because you are a poster on the lunatic fringe who self incriminates.

[loosecannon]

i am sure you will cut the same slack to others that you are claiming here..........

absolutely, I would like to say never, but surely seldom dwell on meaningless details.

[Kathianne]

You simply do not understand reasonable POV. Do I mock you for it? I mean I certainly could. You are an easy target, few defenses, not much of an intellect.

But I usually ignore you because you are a poster on the lunatic fringe who self incriminates.

Wow, you've got me nailed. :finger3:

[loosecannon]

pelosi can't get her way so she is threatening legal action.....

what a great leader....thought she had a mandate from the people

Considering the Republican witch hunt of Bill Clinton I think you should be thanking Pelosi that it isn't 20 times more severe.

[loosecannon]

the concept of biased media would never cross your mind, I'm sure.

Of course it does.

Since the 1850's the US media has been biased in favor of the right.

[loosecannon]

Wow, you've got me nailed. :finger3:


obviously. You are pretty transparent :finger3:

[lily]

ah come on it was funny......

In a slimy smearing sort of way.



if i don't like your sources can i blow all your arguments off?

Sure!.......but I didn't see much "argument" about the actual topic here.

[manu1959]

i am sure you will cut the same slack to others that you are claiming here..........


absolutely, I would like to say never, but surely seldom dwell on meaningless details.


You simply do not understand reasonable POV. Do I mock you for it? I mean I certainly could. You are an easy target, few defenses, not much of an intellect.

But I usually ignore you because you are a poster on the lunatic fringe who self incriminates.

strange........

[lily]

the concept of biased media would never cross your mind, I'm sure.

We're talking The Hill and Free Republic here......come on!

[manu1959]

In a slimy smearing sort of way.

Sure!.......but I didn't see much "argument" about the actual topic here.

we are discussing politics.....you say slimy smearing like it has nothing to do with politics.....

the topic is lawsuits by the left....gore filing one would be on topic...

[manu1959]

Considering the Republican witch hunt of Bill Clinton I think you should be thanking Pelosi that it isn't 20 times more severe.

pelosi has her mandate and her majority....she should groe a pair....or just take harrys and go for it.....

she can't though....she is the "france" of politicians....

[lily]

the topic is lawsuits by the left....gore filing one would be on topic...

Good.....then we are not discussing the silly OP.

[manu1959]

Good.....then we are not discussing the silly OP.

op?....

[Birdzeye]

the concept of biased media would never cross your mind, I'm sure.


I guess the farrightwing strategy of planting outrageous stories in disreputable sources then screaming about the "biased media" that won't pick up those outrageous stories (because there's nothing to them) would never cross your mind.

[Dilloduck]

I guess the farrightwing strategy of planting outrageous stories in disreputable sources then screaming about the "biased media" that won't pick up those outrageous stories (because there's nothing to them) would never cross your mind.

Conpsiracy Thread candidate ! :poke:

[Birdzeye]

Conpsiracy Thread candidate ! :poke:

Like it's never happened. :rolleyes:

[Dilloduck]

Like it's never happened. :rolleyes:

Prove it. See if you can document it as well as Dan Rathers' attempt to smear Bush is.

[lily]

op?....
Original Post

[manu1959]

I guess the farrightwing strategy of planting outrageous stories in disreputable sources then screaming about the "biased media" that won't pick up those outrageous stories (because there's nothing to them) would never cross your mind.

I guess the farleftwing strategy of planting outrageous stories in disreputable sources then screaming about the "biased media" that won't pick up those outrageous stories (because there's nothing to them) would never cross your mind.

http://digg.com/politics/Did_George_Bush_rape_a_black_woman

[Yurt]

Yurt, the bolded sections hardly seem like the ones you would sensibly be asking for proof of.

I know why Pelosi made her statement. I don't care what you believe.

And as to the exact minutes between the signing of the McCain antitorture bill and the signing statement that negated it, I was posting metaphorically.

It might have been 2 minutes and 4 seconds. Maybe Bush had to sharpen his pen.

I said:


And don't forget non justiciable issues...

Of course you belittle my bolded sections because you know I am right. And the only way you can prove your point is to attack my logic, rather than actually addressing my post. Your vain attempt about metaphorically falls far short of an answer. You made stuff up, period. A time factor like that is relevant. You may not agree, but think about. If he changed his mind a day later versus a decade later, would you not agree that it makes a difference?

This has to be my favorite failed attempt at defending one's own logic:


I know why Pelosi made her statement. I don't care what you believe.

I know you are, but what am I.... :laugh2:

or

Damn the truth, I know why and I don't care.... :laugh2:

[lily]

I guess the farleftwing strategy of planting outrageous stories in disreputable sources then screaming about the "biased media" that won't pick up those outrageous stories (because there's nothing to them) would never cross your mind.

http://digg.com/politics/Did_George_Bush_rape_a_black_woman



Oooo Oooooo can I play?


http://static.flickr.com/110/274883220_1395cef147.jpg?v=1161384270

[Kathianne]

I said:



Of course you belittle my bolded sections because you know I am right. And the only way you can prove your point is to attack my logic, rather than actually addressing my post. Your vain attempt about metaphorically falls far short of an answer. You made stuff up, period. A time factor like that is relevant. You may not agree, but think about. If he changed his mind a day later versus a decade later, would you not agree that it makes a difference?

This has to be my favorite failed attempt at defending one's own logic:



I know you are, but what am I.... :laugh2:

or

Damn the truth, I know why and I don't care.... :laugh2:

Yep, my take on his ability to debate and intellect.

[Yurt]

Yep, my take on his ability to debate and intellect.

I would take out ability....

[Yurt]

Oooo Oooooo can I play?


http://static.flickr.com/110/274883220_1395cef147.jpg?v=1161384270


What makes you think they are left wing and not far outback wings.... Odd how you would use this as an example of left wing media....

[lily]

What makes you think they are left wing and not far outback wings.... Odd how you would use this as an example of left wing media....


It was a frigging joke..........but if you're offering to take me to Outback, I'll say whatever you want me to!

[Yurt]

It was a frigging joke..........but if you're offering to take me to Outback, I'll say whatever you want me to!

Bloomin onion, say it three times wallaby and ya got it...:beer:

[lily]

Bloomin onion
Bloomin onion
Bloomin onion


.........and I was nice enough not to breath on you when I was saying it!

[loosecannon]

Of course you belittle my bolded sections because you know I am right. And the only way you can prove your point is to attack my logic, rather than actually addressing my post. Your vain attempt about metaphorically falls far short of an answer. You made stuff up, period. A time factor like that is relevant. You may not agree, but think about. If he changed his mind a day later versus a decade later, would you not agree that it makes a difference?

This has to be my favorite failed attempt at defending one's own logic:



I know you are, but what am I.... :laugh2:

or

Damn the truth, I know why and I don't care.... :laugh2:

GAWD are you high on your own fumes? Can I just call you MR. non sequitur from now on. I mean most of your replies to me project the aura of a guy talking to himself in the mirror ..... without pause.

You got bent outta shape 2 weeks ago because you imagined that I called you gay. I was jesting.

You can't get your woodie down ever since.

Go stalk somebody else Yurt. I don't need a freak groupie.

[Yurt]

GAWD are you high on your own fumes? Can I just call you MR. non sequitur from now on. I mean most of your replies to me project the aura of a guy talking to himself in the mirror ..... without pause.

You got bent outta shape 2 weeks ago because you imagined that I called you gay. I was jesting.

You can't get your woodie down ever since.

Go stalk somebody else Yurt. I don't need a freak groupie.

And yet you spend so much time writing such an intellectual rebuttal to my post.....

You entire post is an attack, not an answer. Let us review, I said:


Of course you belittle my bolded sections because you know I am right. And the only way you can prove your point is to attack my logic, rather than actually addressing my post.

Which you have not yet addressed and continued to attack. As I said, you continue to prove I am right.


Your vain attempt about metaphorically falls far short of an answer. You made stuff up, period. A time factor like that is relevant. You may not agree, but think about. If he changed his mind a day later versus a decade later, would you not agree that it makes a difference?

This has to be my favorite failed attempt at defending one's own logic:



I know you are, but what am I....

or

Damn the truth, I know why and I don't care....


Care to actually respond or just look stupid? You are not the schoolyard bully here, your big words won't help, your bully logic will fail. You must prove what you say. Sadly, you are still a whelp. Insults will not win a point. Attacking personally is a logical fallacy. You are a failure at debating. I have tried to give you a chance, but, from this post, it appears worthless.

Address the points or shut up.

[loosecannon]

And yet you spend so much time writing such an intellectual rebuttal to my post.....

You entire post is an attack, not an answer. Let us review, I said:



Which you have not yet addressed and continued to attack. As I said, you continue to prove I am right.




Care to actually respond or just look stupid? You are not the schoolyard bully here, your big words won't help, your bully logic will fail. You must prove what you say. Sadly, you are still a whelp. Insults will not win a point. Attacking personally is a logical fallacy. You are a failure at debating. I have tried to give you a chance, but, from this post, it appears worthless.

Address the points or shut up.

I have no interest in being drawn into a chaotically absurd debate with the board tweaker.

You don't do logic, rational or reasoned.

[Yurt]

I have no interest in being drawn into a chaotically absurd debate with the board tweaker.

You don't do logic, rational or reasoned.

No problem. I like that you prove me right, over and over.



Address the points or shut up.

Again, you simply insulted. Did not address one point. Insults and I am but what are you points, do not win debates. In your mind they may, but outside of your mind, it takes more than simply insulting the opponent. Then again, if you did any true debating, you would know this.

Let the voices in your head comfort you...