NY Times Smacks King Bush

The New York Times takes a swipe at President Bush in its Sunday editorial, Our Imperial Presidency at Work. First he gamed McCain over the Torture Amendment with his signing statement. Then he tried divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction in the detainee cases.

The Times astutely observes:

Both of the offensive theories at work here - that a president's intent in signing a bill trumps the intent of Congress in writing it, and that a president can claim power without restriction or supervision by the courts or Congress - are pet theories of Judge Samuel Alito, the man Mr. Bush chose to tilt the Supreme Court to the right.

The administration's behavior shows how high and immediate the stakes are in the Alito nomination, and how urgent it is for Congress to curtail Mr. Bush's expansion of power. Nothing in the national consensus to combat terrorism after 9/11 envisioned the unilateral rewriting of more than 200 years of tradition and law by one president embarked on an ideological crusade.

[graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL.]

< Alito and CAP: More Details | John Shadegg: Newt's Progeny >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Re: NY Times Smacks King Bush (none / 0) (#1)
    by Fr33d0m on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 07:46:51 PM EST
    Move the court to the right? Do they really still believe that was his intent? Talk about staying a step behind.

    Re: NY Times Smacks King Bush (none / 0) (#3)
    by john horse on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:45:41 AM EST
    In Lewis Carrol's Through The Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty says "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." Bush believes that when Congress passes a law, it means whatever he chooses it to mean. Such trivial (to him) details as the intent of the law can be ignored. As the NY Times points out, "you cannot deal in good faith with a White House that does not act in good faith". Bush is not an honorable man. He thinks it is acceptable to ignore the laws passed by Congress. He thinks that lying to the American people to get us into a war is also acceptable. "The question is,' said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-- that's all." Bush believes that a president can claim power without restriction or supervision. The question is, if this is true, then who is to be the master?

    Re: NY Times Smacks King Bush (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:17:49 AM EST
    charlie wrote:
    and put it out before the election like they were supposed to
    Is it your contention that the NYT was part of a conspiracy with the DNC and the "Elect Kerry Committee?" And that by not publishing it they failed to do their fair share? Who would have thought?