President George W. Bush

  • December 1, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Peter M. Shane, the Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law, Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law. He is the author of Madison’s Nightmare:  How Executive Power Threatens American Democracy (University of Chicago Press 2009).

    *This post originally appeared on the blog for Washington Monthly.

    It’s December, 2008.  President Bush foresees economic calamity if the U.S. auto industry collapses.  Congress has failed to enact his recommended rescue plan despite majority support in both Houses.  His party has just taken a drubbing at the polls.  What happens?  He is advised that, under the technical wording of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the Treasury Department can use the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to effectuate the needed rescue.  Presumably with Bush’s approval, it does so.  The president states explicitly that he is responding to Congress’s inability to enact the needed legislation.  Was this “declaring war on the American people?”  No, it is how governance and the rule of law work in the modern administrative state.  The executive branch, facing a problem to which Congress has not responded, canvasses its existing statutory authorities to see if discretion already exists to address a national need.

    Fast forward nearly six years.  President Bush’s successor confronts three realities on immigration policy. The first is that Congress has not funded – and cannot plausibly finance – a system of immigration enforcement adequate to its caseload. The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. was 11.3 million in 2013.

    The Obama Administration deported a record 400,000 persons in 2012. If the government continued at that pace, deporting the current population of undocumented persons would take more than 28 years.  Even that massive effort would clear the decks, so to speak, only if no undocumented persons were to cross our borders between now and the year 2042.

  • November 21, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Lisa HeinzerlingJustice William J. Brennan, Jr. Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. The author was a political appointee at the Environmental Protection Agency from January 2009 to December 2010. She served on the EPA Presidential Transition Team in 2008.

    The Environmental Protection Agency is under court order to issue, by December 1, a proposal to retain or revise the national air quality standards for ground-level ozone. Scientific studies have linked ozone, also known as smog, to a variety of adverse effects on public health and welfare. EPA's expert staff and its outside scientific advisors have recommended, based on this scientific evidence, that EPA set new, stronger standards for ozone. The Clean Air Act requires that air quality standards – "primary" standards for public health, "secondary" standards for public welfare – be set at levels "requisite to protect" public health and welfare. A central question for the proposal to be issued by December 1 is whether the current air quality standards for ozone, set at 75 parts per billion of ozone in the ambient air, adequately provide such protection.

    At the moment, EPA's preferred approach to the ozone standards awaits White House clearance. EPA has sent a regulatory package – likely including, as is customary, the proposed standards, a formal explanation of EPA's choices, and an economic analysis of the proposal – to the White House for review. Under executive orders issued by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the President has asserted the authority to review significant agency rules like the ozone standard and to reject or revise them if they are not consistent with his policies or priorities. President Obama exercised this self-given power previously in the context of ozone, when in 2011 he ordered then-EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to withdraw stronger, revised national air quality standards for ozone. As I will explain, President Obama's past exercise of power hangs over the current decision whether to revise the ozone standards.

    Before President Obama ordered Administrator Jackson to withdraw the revised ozone standards she had developed, the EPA under Administrator Jackson had been working on the revised standards for years, indeed since the day President Obama took office. Revision was necessary, in EPA's view, because standards set during the administration of President George W. Bush had departed from the scientific evidence indicating that stronger rules were necessary to protect public health and welfare. Indeed, EPA's scientific advisors on air quality had reacted to the Bush-era standards by issuing a pointed, unsolicited rebuke, stating that the advisors did not endorse the Bush standards. Strengthening the Bush-era ozone standards was a core EPA priority in the early days of the Obama administration, offering an opportunity both to protect public health and welfare and to return the agency to scientifically sound decision making. No one would have guessed, then, that President Obama would eventually order Administrator Jackson to back off and leave the Bush-era standards in place. But that's what happened.

  • July 12, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Richard W. Painter, former Associate Counsel to the President and Chief White House ethics lawyer, 2005-2007. Painter is co-author of the ACS Issue Brief, “Extraordinary Circumstances: The Legacy of the Gang of 14 and a Proposal for Judicial Nominations Reform.”

    Word on Capitol Hill is that Senate Democrats are thinking seriously about changing the Senate's rules to make filibusters less likely. This is a welcome development because the filibuster -- a procedural mechanism for refusing to allow any vote to take place -- has no place in a body that prides itself on deliberation and decision. A decision not to decide, or to allow a minority of senators to prevent the others from deciding, is not deliberation. It is nothing more than obstruction, a way of saying that "if the majority won't vote my way I won't let them vote at all."

    Less than a decade ago the tables were turned and Democrats used filibusters to block President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Republicans considered amending the Senate's rules to eliminate or reduce the likelihood of filibusters, but in the end they chickened out. They were perhaps more interested in preserving their power to frustrate a future Democratic president than in supporting President Bush. Perhaps they believed that even senators of the president's own political party benefit from filibusters because they can ask the White House for something in return for trying to break the filibuster. For whatever reason Senate Republicans failed to do something about the problem and some of President Bush's most qualified judicial nominees were kept off the federal courts as a result. Other nominees had to wait around for months before they were finally confirmed.

    This situation is even worse under President Obama now that Senate Republicans who once said they despised the filibuster have shown that they actually enjoy it. Thus far, Senate Democrats have followed the precedent of whining about the filibuster but not doing anything about it, perhaps fearing that they may once again be in the minority with a Republican in the White House.  

  • June 3, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    ACS President Caroline Fredrickson provided context to the discussion over Senate Republicans’ efforts to scuttle President Obama’s judicial nominations, in particular focusing on the three vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

    During a June 2 segment on MSNBC’s “Melissa Harris-Perry” show, Fredrickson said Americans should understand that a “vast majority” of high-profile and constitutional weighty cases have to be heard by the D.C. Circuit.

    “Major cases involving regulations” of our health care system, environment, and workers’ rights are heard by the Court, as well as major national security cases and voting rights cases. The majority of such cases are “required to go to the D.C. Circuit,” meaning the Court is one of the more powerful in the country, she said. And as noted on this blog frequently Senate Republicans, especially Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), are bent on keeping the president from making a lasting imprint on the D.C. Circuit. For instance, Grassley is pushing a bill to cut the 11-member court to eight seats thereby preventing Obama from placing any more judges on that court. (Recently the Senate confirmed Obama’s nomination of Sri Srinivasan to a seat on the D.C. Circuit, after twice blocking the president’s initial nomination to the Court.)

    Fredrickson noted that when George W. Bush was president Grassley had no complaints about the number of seats on the D.C. Circuit, instead strongly supporting the president’s constitutional duty to fill vacancies on the federal bench. Fredrickson noted that Grassley and other Republicans “fought like hell to get George Bush’s nominees on the D.C. Circuit when the caseload was not only lower, but they wanted to go right up to the 11th seat and now they say eight is plenty.”

    Fredrickson and the other panelists, including the Alliance for Justice’s Nan Aron, also touched upon discussion in the Senate to alter the filibuster to make it more transparent and a bit more difficult for the obstructionists to abuse. Part of the reason for renewed interest in reforming the filibuster is that Senate Republicans are showing no signs of making it any easier for the president to fill judicial vacancies and some executive branch vacancies.

    See the entire segment below or visit this link.

    Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

  • May 29, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Sam Kleiner, a law student at Yale Law School and member of the ACS Yale Law School Chapter.

    In his widely-noted speech at the Oxford Union, Harold Koh (pictured) invited us to imagine a different response to September 11. It's easy to think that the path taken by the Bush administration was driven by a pre-destined sense of necessity, and Koh's invocation of a President Gore (a timely counter-factual with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's musings on that election and the Supreme Court’s involvement), offers an alternative/hypothetical response in the time-tested law enforcement approach.

    At Lawfare, Ben Wittes defends the Bush administration’s record as oriented on a law enforcement approach. Koh argued that the Obama administration's approach "combined a Law of War approach with Law Enforcement and other approaches to bring all available tools to bear against Al Qaeda" and Wittes countered that this description fit the Bush administration's approach. 

    Contrary to Wittes’ attempt to frame the Bush administration as focused on law enforcement, President Bush specifically rejected this approach and attacked candidate John Kerry for suggesting this path forward. In 2004, when Kerry emphasized his background as a prosecutor and urged that terrorism be considered through a law enforcement lens until it became a "nuisance," Bush attacked him vehemently. Kerry argued for an approach that was, "less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation." Bush responded: "I disagree -- strongly disagree. … After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States of America, and war is what they got." Wittes boasts of a more restrained argument from the Bush administration and he cites a 2006 speech by John Bellinger and a Bush administration brief filed in Boumediene (after losing hugely in RasulHamdi and Hamdan), of a more restrained vision of the war on terrorism. Bush did move away from the GWOT framing in his second term largely because he had been thwarted by the courts and Congress. What Koh invites us to ponder -  and Wittes fails to comprehend - is that you could have had a response to 9/11 that started with a deeply powerful law and order framework rather than heading down the rabbit hole by making outlandish claims of unilateral executive power that threatened constitutional order. By 2006, it was too little too late.