Pelosi to sue Bush over Iraq bill?

Determined to demonstrate her profound ignorance of how our republican government works, House Speaker Pe-loco caters to her moonbat constituency. From The Hill:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.

Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.

Nice to see Pe-loco standing up for normal Americans like the Kostards. Continuing:

“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching,” a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”

It is a scenario for which few lawmakers have planned. Indicating that he may consider attaching a signing statement to a future supplemental spending measure, Bush last week wrote in his veto message, “This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency.”

I wonder if Pe-loco had a problem with her boy Bubba's DOJ stating the following:

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.

Maybe you agree with the concept behind (or usage of) signing statements or maybe you don't. However, it's clear that the very arguments that Bubba's DOJ made were good enough for Bubba, so they'll have to be good enough for Dubya. What am I saying? Since WHEN do liberals adhere to consistency?

Anywho, does anyone want to break it to Nancy that she can't sue the prez for refusing to let her have her way? The Supreme Court has weighed in on this before:

In the 1970s, congressional Democrats tried to get the courts to force President Nixon to stop bombing in Cambodia. The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.