I heard some discussion on NPR about something that piqued my interest a bit. They talked about the criteria for bringing law suits. Conservatives tend to only allow lawsuits where someone has been damaged and can show that they have been damaged, like a punch in the nose. Whereas liberal judges will allow lawsuits showing potential damage, like someone threatening to punch you in the nose.

The implications of this were that the Supreme Court will not hear arguments on things like land use or environmental law, because no one has been damaged. Those lawsuits are trying to prevent the damage.

Any thoughts?

Oh yeah! Forgot another thing. Apparently sometimes when presidents sign bills into law, they occassionally write "signing notes"... forget the term I heard... Unitary executive? Anyway, usually it is very infrequently done. Clinton never did it, George Bush #1 did it less than a dozen times... George Bush #2 has done it over 100 times. Allito apparently has written the opinion that these signing notes should be regarded as part of the law when the law is interpreted! :eek: In the case of the anti-torture admendment apparently GBW wrote an interesting signing note that reintrepreted the law such as he can work around it.... I'll try to find it.

Here's a reference, scroll down: http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/01/01-week/

How it "may become necessary" to Shred the Fourth Amendment, and Other New Year's Bedtime Stories

Before the gong clanged on 2005, President Bush signed John McCain's torture bill into law, with a clarifying signing note that strongly hinted the government reserves the right to torture anyway, if it deems the activity to be covered under its interpretation of White House prerogatives:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

Presidential signing notes, which Bush (and apparently Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito) are fond of, do not as of yet carry much if any force of law; they're more a window into where the president's head is at.

Rediculous. Why even bother with a Legislative and Judicial branch if the Executive Branch has all the same powers anyway?

Post Presidential Book Titles:

From Democracy to Monarchy in 5 short years!
The American King

I think land use lawsuits are ripe for hearing before a conservative court. Current interpretation of the law allows the government (both federal and state) to severly restrict without compensation an owner's use of his land, even when such restrictions result in economic harm to the landowner through reduced land value.

This has irked conservatives for a long time. If the Supreme Court takes a decidedly conservative slant, I would expect to see a number of previous decisions in this area revisited.

Post Presidential Book Titles:

From Democracy to Monarchy in 5 short years!
The American King

Technically it would be a Tyranny, since Monarchy involves appointments for life and heirs and such.
Now I admit that the Bush surely are attempting to establish a ruling dynasty, but so far they have not had much luck at changing the constitution (or other law?) to allow for an indefinite number of terms. Nor do the american people seem inclined to automatically elect Bush's eldest child president for life :)


Eri