Law Day...

So, I promised a 24 hour turn around on the post about Law Day and President Bush and I failed you all. But, I'm here now...everything will be OK. (By the way, I got an email about that one from my friend Adam in Iraq--ooh, cool, I will soon be "Adam, in Iraq"...anyway, he wrote, that "when the revolution happens...at least we'll be the ones with the guns" which made me laugh since I know he's halfway mocking me.)

So, my other friend, Mike, couldn't understand why I was so upset about Law Day. The way I saw it, it was a total slap in the face...it was like raping my sister and then having a "celebration of sexual purity". OK, that might be a bit extreme, but that's how it feels to anyone who follows this stuff, particularly if you have followed his record on the judicial system. Let me, in bullet form, throw up some highlights of Bush's idea of "separation of powers" when it comes to the judiciary:

• The appointment of two judges to the Supreme Court who believe in the "Unitary Executive". The Unitary Executive (I'll use wikopedia since it's easiest)

  The theory relies on the Vesting Clause of Article II which states "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Proponents of the unitary executive use this language along with the Take Care Clause ("[The President] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...") to argue that the Constitution creates a "hierarchical, unified executive department under the direct control of the President."[1]
  The theory argues that the power of Congress to divest the President of control of the executive branch is limited.
  

  
  This theory is what the President believes allows him to sign a bill, such as the McCain torture amendment, while at the same time releasing a "signing statement" which says, in essence, that he doesn't have to follow the law.
  
• He continues to try and put right wing judges, some of whom are literally criminal, on the courts. From Janice Rogers Brown, who wrote,

  We are heirs to a mind-numbing bureaucracy; subject to a level of legalization that cannot avoid being arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory. What other outcome is possible in a society in which no adult can wake up, go about their business, and return to their homes without breaking several laws? There are of course many reasons for our present difficulties, but some of our troubles can be laid at the feet of that most innocuous branch – the judiciary…From the 1960’s onward, we have witnessed the rise of the judge militant.

  And went on to write,

  The United States Supreme Court, however, began in the 1940s to incorporate the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment…The historical evidence supporting what the Supreme Court did here is pretty sketchy…The argument on the other side is pretty overwhelming that it’s probably not incorporated. [“Beyond the Abyss: Restoring Religion on the Public Square,” Speech to Pepperdine Bible Lectureship in 1999]

  Just to be clear...without incorporating the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment, states could establish a religion.
  
• Here's a story about another Judge Bush wants to raise to a higher court. He wants to do so knowing that this Judge ruled in favor of companies he had just bought stock in...a basic law violated.

I could go on and on about the violations Bush has committed against the Judiciary, but I wont (I'm hungry and want to go eat) but, I will leave you with this quote from the amazing speech Gore gave that I quote far too often:

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution-our system of checks and balances-was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."