I mentioned Sen. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter’s (R-Pa.) disgust with the president’s signing statements in my post yesterday and today have found the links detailing Specter’s suggestion that Congress consider suing Bush for Constitutional breaches.
The Globe’s Charlie Savage has the straight-up scoop on Specter’s apparent threat to sue here.
Specter: “[T]here’s a real issue here as to whether the president may, in effect, cherry-pick the provisions he likes, excluding the provisions he doesn’t like. . . . The president has the option under the Constitution to veto or not.”
The Times’ Kate Zernike casts the line here explaining the signing statement as a: “device that gave him the authority to revise or ignore more than 750 laws enacted since he became president.”
Dan Froomkin broke out his bullhorn and asked the media to follow up on this issue, providing an extensive list of questions to ask lawmakers and executives.
TMV sums up Specter’s unsatisfactory meeting with asst. deputy AG Michelle Boardman. “If the Constitution and the law conflict, the president must choose,” Boardman retorted, which seriously makes me wonder whether or not I really read what I read or if it was a flashback to Orwell.
Can anyone tell me what Howard Kurtz is doing — still hung up on the NYT Swift story? Can we not file that away with the blown-way-out-of-proportion indictment of seven unfortunate Miami youth last week as, perhaps something in another time and place (as Time magazine puts it) we might laugh at?
Perhaps Specter’s threats are just threats, but dissent just doesn’t cut it when dealing with an administration buried under poor approval ratings. Syndicated columnist Marianne Means has high praise for Specter… Could it be time for action?