I think it's fair to say among patriots that we agree that we're in a kind of national nightmare. I'm terrified that Bush may very just succeed in altering the historical landscape, elevating the power of the Presidency beyond our Constitutionally ensured checks and balances.
The independence of the Judiciary has already been compromised, and now he's directly going after Congressional oversight power. He - or at least his Secretary of State - has already said he wouldn't follow laws passed by Congress.
With eighteen months and Christ on his side, Bush can continue to do lots of damage to our nation and world until he is (supposed) to step down. I'm more concerned about the next few hundred years of the republic, than I am for the next 1.5 years.
What's the best way to stop Bush's reaches at unlimited power from becoming precedent? This is what keeps me up at night, truly.
It's been frequently argued, as I have, that we need to act forcefully to impeach Bush and prosecute his crimes and those committed by others in his administration. The thinking behind this approach, is that it reinforces the precedent that Presidential power has its limits. If we let a President get away with exercising unfettered power, we will have granted it to him. We can't just let this notion that Executive Privilege can apply to anything or everything in the Executive Branch.
I've considered the several routes to Congressional Oversight that have been discussed in these diaries. It's hard to imagine a way these proceedings couldn't be sent to the Supreme Court if it was what Bush's people wanted. Issuing legal challenge to signing statements or Executive Orders necessarily involve the courts.
If Congress gets around to holding witnesses in contempt - including inherent contempt - then the Executive Branch will swing it into federal courts leading up to the Supreme Court. Instead of the case itself going to the Supreme Court, an ancillary component might wend its way to the Court, such as interactions between the jailers attempting to take away Harriet Miers and the Secret Service agents guarding her. Remember that Bush v. Gore wasn't about chads, but a state's rights to decide how to count chads. It wasn't election law, it was about the indpendence of state courts. So, if Bush's claim to the "Unitary Executive (tm)" go to court, it won't be about it directly, giving cover to justices who say they were just following the law.
In the current environment - in which the Supreme Court had already appointed a president who had not won the election - it would be perilous to bring forward a legal case that would challenge the President's authority. While Scalia, Thomas, Alito and probably Roberts would clearly side with Bush's mad grab for an unfettered "Unitary Executive," I'm not sure about Kennedy. I think he might, after all he knew what Bush was like when he broke his own precedents in Bush v. Gore seven years ago.
I am uncomfortable with the notion of trusting our nation's checks and balances with Justice Anthony Kennedy.
We are afraid that Bush will set a precedent to increase Presidential Power to the point where the judiciary and congress are either rubber stamps or ineffectual. I am too. This is why I don't want to see challenges to Bush's power in the courts. The Supreme Court would hand down a 5-4 decision granting Bush and his successors powers far beyond those in any healthy Republic. I'd like to see Bush in court to be prosecuted for his crimes, not to question the precedents he's like to set.
I'm fine with impeachment - it's a grand idea. Feingold's censure approach is more appealing to me. It's not because it's a compromise or a middle path. It's because it has the greatest chance of shaping historical precedent to make Bush's follies and attempts to change the structure of the law. Bush's Supreme Court cannot override a censure, because a censure doesn't DO anything. It just says to the nation, "We know he's a bozo, and horribly mistaken about the nature of our union, and let's get back to business when he's through trying to become a dictator."
Both us and the majority of Republicans want this Bush disaster to end. In legal terms, if we simply do not grant Bush the powers that he is exercising, then he doesn't have these powers. If we sue him about it, then he'd win in court.
If we ignore these claims of power, just like the tantrum of a toddler, then soon it'll be over and it won't have any consequence. If we work to appease the tantrum, then the toddler gets power over us.
Because the courts are likely to affirm Bush's claims to the throne of Caesar, this isn't something we should work for. At least, I think so and am ready to hear other perspectives and additional information.
I just think that the best option is to let his petulance be the way it is and wait until we have an adult in office. Let the Republicans and Democrats see Bush with his reddened face screaming on the ground crying into his PullUps (tm), and then roll their eyes at one another and get back to work. This work, I would think, would mean defunding the war and revoking authorization.