Regarding the ABA and Signing Statements

A reader writes:

The ABA has ZERO standing to assume that only their candidates should be appointed to the Bench. They have their own agenda and I am not sure it always to the betterment of the nation.

Signing statements are in anticipation of challenges and law suits. I think they are silly and foolish but they do clear up what the "intentions" were when a bill was enacted. I believe it borders dangerously on creating or amending legislation. A power specifically reserved for the legislature.

The first part of the comment reflects the reservations I mentioned here regarding the American Bar Association and it's statements about President Bush's actions. Since the ABA is perceived as so commonly opposed to Republican appointments to the bench- especially the Supreme Court- they may lack credibility.

The second part of the comment reflect the fact that we need to get past the ABA's credibility and look at the issue with our own eyes.

If the signing statement were merely saying, "Here's how I understand the bill that I am now signing," in an effort to clear up some ambiguity that would be one thing. The Congress could then revisit and amend the legislation as necessary. That's not the case with President Bush. He's saying that he may, essentially, not follow the law if, in his opinion, national security issues come into play. That's a problem. Not only does the Congress not get a chance to deal with the issue in advance of it becoming a problem, as we've seen with this Administration, they may not tell anyone that they've decided that a national security issue is in play and they've already begun to ignore the law. That's where the violation of separation of powers is found.

I'm hopeful- ABA or no ABA- that this issue will be examined by the courts.

GP