Even before his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, it was clear that Judge Samuel Alito believed in the obscure doctrine of the “unitary executive.” After the hearings, we still don’t know exactly what Alito thinks about the limits, if any, of presidential power. But in the Bush era, few issues are more important. The doctrine of the unitary executive—that… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (35)Page 1 of 1 pagesIf you are so scared of the “unitary executive” from the Supreme Court why are the Democrats so coward in using the filibuster? They easily have the 41 plus votes to stop a cloture. Instead, they are braying like whimps from the sidelines.
Then they pander and ponificate and say they’re afraid of the “nuclear option”. Real reason - they know how a filibuster would play out, and they know that the strong majority of Americans support Alito’s nomination at this point. They are leaderless, scattered, and embarrassed about what happened in the hearings. If they aren’t - why are the Dems so scared of a filibuster?
And if they’re soo scared of that - imagine them trying to actually impeach the president! You only have about a year to get this train running David, I’ll just sit back and see what you can come up with until then. I like my busy Dems working away and producing, as usual, absolutely nothing to show for it. So we don’t need to argue, probably won’t go anywhere. Let’s just see how all the Progessives can do on impeachment hearings.
Cheers!
Posted by InThoseTimes on Jan 21, 2006 at 4:58 PM Scared? is it not enough to be concerned, InThoseTimes? Isn’t being concerned legitimate?
The fact that the Congressional Democratics suck doesn’t justify the process of making the presidency a “legal” dictatorship. (We’ll have to look at W. in military costume with obscene racks of ribbons and medals, if this flies. You realize that don’t you?)
How about the ninth justice? I wonder.
I wouldn’t be so quick as Mr. Moberg to conclude that impeachment is not politically viable, and am old school enough to say that a criminal act is no less criminal by being political. What isn’t political?
I’m curious to see how many Republicans are going to be affected by the Abramoff (sp?) scandal.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 21, 2006 at 5:48 PM “If the people cannot rule themselves, then someone will have to rule them.” - Julius Caesar, from the play ‘Crossing the Rubicon’
Posted by rocco on Jan 21, 2006 at 6:56 PM Am I not getting a joke? What does “rule” mean, Rocco?
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 21, 2006 at 7:07 PM rule - to exercise control (over), govern. To dominate; hold sway over. To mark with straight parallel lines. (American Heritage Dictionary)
wileywitch - are you not getting a joke? Did someone tell one?
I just think this scenario is all too familiar. Don’t be sad. The Roman Empire did have a few benevolent despots. Let’s hope we get them in our lifetime, yeah? I’m hoping for some good public baths.
Posted by rocco on Jan 21, 2006 at 7:13 PM A benevolent king would be better than an idiot dictator, but somehow, we are never given that choice, are we? A benevolent King, if we had one, would be fine in the short run, however the children of the wealthy and powerful seem to be almost unanimously useless even when they do look good in a bikini.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 21, 2006 at 8:06 PM As it was in Rome. The political class was entirely made up of elites, and the imperial families - like the Julio-Claudians - came out of them.
Caesar was ironically pretty radical, which ended in his demise. So in that sense you’re right - Bush is a moron. That really doesn’t matter though. He’s controlled by those who aren’t morons.
But choice wasn’t really in the cards then or now. True Caesar was popular, but so is Bush, really. I wrote this on another thread - people without real values will gladly hand over popular rule for the sake of convenience and security. It’s pretty standard. A definite downside to the life of convenience and excess is that you just don’t feel like making big decisions.
According to my calculations, we live in a time in stark parallel to that of Rome. I think those of us who value democracy have some real adjusting to do. And it should determine where we focus our collective energy.
Posted by rocco on Jan 21, 2006 at 8:22 PM That’s a good point, Rocco. How to adapt to corporate imperialism? Will we all be in the French Resistance? Will democracy be a low priority?
Wherever we go from here, survival will eventually trump all. Our chances aren’t exactly getting any better, but life is certainly interesting.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 21, 2006 at 8:55 PM Wherever we go from here, survival will eventually trump all. Our chances aren’t exactly getting any better, but life is certainly interesting.
Well put. I think it takes a lot of the stress out of one’s life when you discard any hoped-for outcome. It’s all really quite beautiful, when you think about it.
We should all thank Bush for giving us a purpose. Thanks Bush!
Posted by rocco on Jan 21, 2006 at 9:44 PM Re adaptation to corporate imperialism: create a corporation with values. I wish lefties would get off their high horse, roll up their sleeves, and engage in capitalism with both hands. There are many successful examples - Costco is a great one.
The system is indeed rigged, but it has gaping flaws. Exploit ‘em.
Posted by rocco on Jan 21, 2006 at 9:50 PM I don’t know much about Costco, Rocco, but this concept of unitary executive priviledge is about as sophisticated as pig latin.
They are just making shit up as they go along, apparently.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 22, 2006 at 7:23 PM Yeah, it’s like double secret probation.
Costco: fairly progressive worker strategies (pays living wage, benefits, etc), keeps costs down, stays fairly local. It’s a good model. Whole Foods is as well, though I found out they union bust.
I’m sure people can get more creative and more brazen then those two. And there are other more radical (if much smaller) corp.’s doing the same.
A sure fire way to fail is for the left to eschew industry as an option, as they have been. The very idea is anathema to most radicals.
I can’t see a socialist system ever coming out of the ether...I think capitalism would have to somehow morph into a more fair system, just as capitalism morphed out of mercantilism (or is trying to). I think that there is something to Smithian capitalist theory. Lord knows it’s never been tried.
At any rate, Bush & Friends are frontmen for the power brokers - the transnational elites. Our owners. They are who we really should be wresting power from. Democratize industry, and government will take care of itself.
Posted by rocco on Jan 22, 2006 at 10:11 PM Democratically run businesses are communist. Haven’t you heard?
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 22, 2006 at 10:29 PM When Clinton was President, he got to choose his 2 SC justices ... and both Ginsburg and Breyer are far from the center.
Now Bush is President, and he gets to choose ... those are rules ... deal with it. (you can’t change the rules)
What did you expect ... that Bush was going to pick someone from the ACLU. lol ...
You liberals lost the election ..
RUTH BADER GINSBURG
In the 1970s Ginsburg litigated sex discrimination cases for the American Civil Liberties Union, and was instrumental in launching its Women’s Rights Project in 1973. She served as general counsel of the ACLU from 1973-1980 and on the National Board of Directors from 1974-1980. President Jimmy Carter appointed Ginsburg to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980.STEPHEN G. BREYER
In 1973 Breyer returned to Washington, D.C., as an assistant special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation. President Jimmy Carter appointed Breyer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 1980Its like this: at the beginning of a football game they flip a coin, and the winner picks if they want to receive at the beginning of the game or after halftime. And if (Team Donkey) wins the toss and receives the ball at the beginning ... they can’t come out after halftime and then say we also want the ball now. Those ARE NOT the rules.
And that is what you liberals are trying to do. Clinton got his 2 picks ... and now Bush gets his 2 picks. You can’t change the rules and take your 2 picks from Clinton and then also get another 2 picks now. (THOSE ARE NOT THE RULES)
See we knew this was going to happen, that is why we had DIEBOLD rig the election in Ohio. And guess what ... we will cheat again in 2008 ... we have DIEBOLD in our back pockets and there is nothing you can do about it. lol ...
PS > Ohio just voted down a propostion that would of required paper trails for electronic voting machines. NO paper trails in Ohio ...
Looks like Ohio will be a Red State again for 2008 !!!
Posted by tina1 on Jan 22, 2006 at 11:40 PM You seem to be contradicting yourself tina1, doesn’t democracy have rules?
Before your try to come back with more nonsense I’ll tell you the answer to that question, democracy does indeed have rules.
One of the problems with this country is that people like you seem so proud of the Republican’s criminal behavior.
You should be ashamed of yourself, but I don’t think you know how.
Posted by Max Godwin on Jan 23, 2006 at 4:54 AM At least she admits cheating. It’s oddly refreshing. Like drinking Scope.
Posted by rocco on Jan 23, 2006 at 9:40 AM Hi, Max Godwin. Tina1 is a kooky troll. She may look almost coherent right now, but she’s not. It is futile to reason with her. Facts mean nothing to her. She has paranoid delusions about “liberals”. They are everywhere. They control the media. They just hate Bush. They are all losers.
Talking points, ditto, ditto, ditto.
You get the drift. If you go back through the threads you will see how she works.
I ask you, personally, Max Godwin and rocco, and all else-- please do not feed Tina1---ever. I’ve adopted her. For the sake of intelligent discussion and the integrity of the threads, I am asking that other posters do not respond to her, no matter what she says. She is never really part of the conversation anyway and she appears to be almost always in tantrum.
Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 23, 2006 at 2:22 PM An imperial presidency is indeed in the making. A filibuster would enable Congress to challenge the Executive branch from steamrolling over the Constitution. I hope they will exercise their options.
“ Alito Filibuster: It Only Takes One”
By Robert Parry
Consortiumnews.comSunday 22 January 2006
“With the fate of the U.S. Constitution in the balance, it’s hard to believe there’s no senator prepared to filibuster Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, whose theories on the “unitary executive” could spell the end of the American democratic Republic.”
last two concluding paragraphs:
“A disciplined filibuster focused on protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would have a chance of attracting traditional conservatives as well as moderates and liberals in a cause larger than any political grouping.
Indeed, the filibuster could be the start of a grand coalition built around what many Americans hold as dear as life itself, the principles of a democratic Republic where no man is above the law, where no man is king.”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012306I.shtml
Posted by pick of the litter on Jan 23, 2006 at 2:58 PM This entire editorial is worth reading, let me see if it fits:
“Ominous Sign: The President’s Growing Disregard for the Law”
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | EditorialFriday 20 January 2006
“ President Bush’s latest tool for disrespecting the Constitution, Congress and the American people, used more than a hundred times so far, is the presidential signing statement.
That statement is normally a few words that a president says when he signs a bill passed by Congress. In the past it was an occasion for the president to congratulate legislators who had been particularly active in passing the bill and to praise the new legislation generously, even if he himself had been unsympathetic to it.
There is no mention of the statement in the Constitution, nor does it have any role in how laws are passed and put into effect.
Yet Mr. Bush has taken the presidential signing statement as another means of asserting his will over and above the country’s laws, whatever they may say. In effect, he is trying to establish that whatever he says when he signs the bill overrides whatever the legislation itself may stipulate. Historians and presidential scholars, among others, find it alarming.
This is nothing new for Mr. Bush. He began disregarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 in 2002 when he authorized wiretapping of foreigners and Americans’ telephone calls and e-mails by the National Security Agency without first obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The practice continues today.
His new use of the presidential signing statement turned up egregiously when after signing the bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain to ban the torture of prisoners in American custody, Mr. Bush issued a statement Dec. 30 that in effect said he would enforce the new law only as he saw fit.
We repeat - there is nothing in the Constitution that says he can do that. To the degree that the American system functions, Congress passes laws that put into effect the will of the people.
Mr. Bush’s subversion of the process is particularly ironic since the laws passed by Congress that he chooses not to carry out are the product of a legislature controlled by his own political party. Unfortunately, that is also a prime reason that Congress is not in open revolt over the president’s disregard for its work.
Everyone loses when a president chooses to carry out only the laws that he wants to, as he wants to. Fundamental governance of the United States through the rule of law is sabotaged by this practice. We’ll see what happens when Mr. Bush’s ability to do so is challenged by a court - assuming there will still be independent courts after he succeeds in stocking them with acquiescent appointees.
Mr. Bush’s presidential signing statements are a practice designed to paint the Constitution, Congress and the American people into a shrinking corner. If Congress can’t pass a law and expect the president to respect it, where exactly is this nation left?”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012006K.shtml
Posted by pick of the litter on Jan 23, 2006 at 3:01 PM It is scary when Congress is helpless in the face of a statement. What does Rove have on these guys? Have they received death threats?
How can they let this happen? Bush isn’t even popular anymore.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 23, 2006 at 3:31 PM Will it be “God Bless America”? or “Long Live the King!”?
“The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around this nomination. But there is no reason to believe that Judge Alito is any more popular than the president who nominated him. Outside a small but vocal group of hard-core conservatives, America has greeted the nomination with a shrug - and counted on its senators to make the right decision.
The real risk for senators lies not in opposing Judge Alito, but in voting for him. If the far right takes over the Supreme Court, American law and life could change dramatically. If that happens, many senators who voted for Judge Alito will no doubt come to regret that they did not insist that Justice O’Connor’s seat be filled with someone who shared her cautious, centrist approach to the law.”
from: “Judge Alito’s Radical Views”
The New York Times | EditorialMonday 23 January 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012306D.shtml
I agree that Supreme Court justices should not be appointed for life. A local paper of mine included a reader’s letter to the editor that addressed that issue just the other day, also suggesting a 10-12 year limit. Sounds reasonable to me.
Posted by pick of the litter on Jan 23, 2006 at 4:25 PM Been awhile since I posted here, but I can see that a newer wave of conservative trolls have appeared, the most recent manifestation of which is “tina1”. Remember Jack Barnes and Michael Hardesty? Those kooks were trolls with a penchant for digging their heels in and throwing the mud.
Anyways, tina, you are wrong about Ginsburg. She frequently voted along with her conservative co-judges, who included ROBERT BORK, as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Even Orrin hatch approved of her appointment in 1993.
Breyer is also quite centrist as well. He cast the deciding vote last year to allow a monument of the Ten Commandments to remain on the grounds of a Texas courthouse. Nothing in his prior record indicates he is a liberal.
Quit it with the ACLU bashing. They do more to protect our freedoms than any soldier ever did. And by the way, the ACLU is opposed to the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill becuase it ostensibly violates the first amendment (so money is speech?) and defended the right of a Nazi to hold an anti-semite march through Jewish Skokie, Illinois in the 1970s.
Posted by Liberal on Jan 23, 2006 at 4:34 PM Back to the topic of the article.
I shudder to think anybody left, right, center are ok with the warrantless eavesdropping. It’s sickly amusing how the president ties in eavesdropping in general with it’s protection of US citizens, and that anybody against it is basically compromising it. What bothers me is not the eavesdropping itself, though not a thrilling event, it’s the fact that they are being done without warrants. If we all buy the president’s argument about how necessary they are, how they only target likely terrorists; why not go to the FISA Court then. If they’re so obviously necessary, that court certainly would not block them, as history shows they pretty much rubber stamp these types of requests. Furthermore, if such a immediate need to tap or eavesdrop immediately, FISA allows for application within 72 hours, why hasn’t he followed this?
A sneaky suspicion of mine is that there is a heck of a lot more to this story. They are more wide spread than has been admitted to. It just doesn’t add up otherwise.
How can anybody be comfortable with this? The same branch determines who suspects are, how/when they are eavesdropped, and for how long with out any oversight. Don’t give me the DOJ is the oversight, they are under the same branch of government as the pres. too.One last note - I hold out faith, as much as the liberals on this forum may disagree, that Justice Scalia will not rule favorable here. I don’t believe he’s the rubber stamp that Thomas may be - Scalia and strict constructionist go hand and hand, and I just don’t believe he’ll agree with Bush’s logic.
Posted by csmelnix on Jan 23, 2006 at 4:45 PM It’s nothing new, csmelnix. The FBI has keeping tabs on the Gray Panthers.
It’s a no brainer that the administration is more worried about dissent than terrorists, and that it benefits from divide and conquer tactics.
There is a chance that the supreme court would vote against this executive privilege. My guess is that the “president” would then make a statement that that isn’t binding either.
There is no reason for this to even be taken to the Supreme Court.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 23, 2006 at 5:45 PM wileywitch - I respond to whomever I choose. If there is to be any sort of coherent dialogue - especially in a given thread - then isn’t tina1 a representative of the type of person who welcomes a dictator, esp. of the Caesar variety which I started this post off with? Isn’t that worth dealing with? Battling with the hopeless is a great honor.
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 1:31 AM Rocco, of course you are free to respond to whomever you chose. I asked for cooperation, I didn’t demand it. If you want to be the warrior for hopeless causes, you are certainly free to do so. Tina1 is certainly hopeless.
I have to wonder why you wouldn’t rather devote your time to people who are a bit more promising, but that’s your issue.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 24, 2006 at 4:49 PM Call me jude rocco.
I understand your efforts, but I disagree with them. Out of curiosity, I checked a few Republican sites. They outright ban us (you must agree to be a conservative to enter). That’s seems pretty standard—we may change someone’s mind, and that can’t be tolerated. And shockingly, I’ve agreed a couple times with tina1. Maybe we won’t seem so strange and detestable to her if she finds commonality in us.
Let’s keep the robots around, if for no other reason, to prove that democracy allows for everybody to speak, and that even the minority of opinion are responded to. Even robots.
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 5:16 PM I’m not keeping her from speaking, rocco, but whatever.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 24, 2006 at 8:29 PM Hey broomstick,
Don’t feel bad, your not alone. All liberals have a tough time debating conservatives on the issues.
I understand, it’s much easier for you and your lib friends just telling each other what you want to hear.
Question: Why do libs get upset about opposing views?
I listen to Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes a little bit AAR .. and they never have anyone on that has an opposing viewpoint. Why is that?
Rush, O’Reilly, Savage, Beck, Hannity always have guests on their radio program with opposing views ... in fact, they encourage people with a different view to call in.
I’ve been listening to talk radio for years ... so I know. This isn’t my opinion based on something I read on the Internet or what someone told me. Nope .. this is fact, because I listen.
Posted by tina1 on Jan 24, 2006 at 9:20 PM wiley - Genuinely appreciate your reasons, and your methods. I just try to think of tina1 as the average American, who is woefully uneducated, and whose curiosity is fed by shysters like her radio heroes.
Think of her as a prodigal daughter. She’s coming here for more reasons than she cares to admit…
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 9:58 PM The story of the two Clinton appointments now on the Supreme Court, Bader-Ginsberg and Breyer, is a very interesting one. By the time Clinton got around to appointing these two he had already saw a big fight coming in the Senate the likes of which we now have been seeing over the various Bush nominees. This is something he badly wanted to avoid. He asked a ranking Republican Orrin Hatch to pick two compromise candidates that both parties could avoid a protracted struggle over. The result was Ginsburg and Breyer.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jan 25, 2006 at 5:54 PM What you “liberals” don’t understand ... is this >>>>
THE MAIN OBJECTIVE of Conservatives in the 2004 election was the Supreme Court !!!
AND WE WON ... NOT ONCE ... BUT TWICE.
We got 2 Justices in the SC.
So… How Do You Like Them Apples???
Posted by tina1 on May 15, 2006 at 9:33 PM What you “liberals” don’t understand ... is this >>>>
THE MAIN OBJECTIVE of Conservatives in the 2004 election was the Supreme Court !!!
AND WE WON ... NOT ONCE ... BUT TWICE.
We got 2 Justices in the SC.
So… How Do You Like Them Apples???
Posted by aleksmanual on Jul 1, 2006 at 7:48 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Moberg
- Our Imperfect Unions
- Dismantling the Myth of McCain
How the Republican senator's maverick image is a sham - Main Street Squeeze
- Winning the White Working Class
- The Healthcare Union War
Tensions between the California Nurses Association and SEIU escalate at the Labor Notes conference - Dissent in the Ranks
SEIU Is the Nation's Fastest Growing Union -- But at What Cost?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
