The internals of the polls consistently show that self-proclaimed conservatives are not going to vote for St. Rick. If memory serves, he's lost enough of the conservative vote to virtually assure defeat. He burned a lot of bridges when he supported Specter over Toomey....and the folks that historically worked for Santorum and contributed (myself included) are sitting it out or voting third party.
"...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements..."
Specter, the man GWB and Ricky Santorum saved from certain defeat, the man who is charged with the responsibility of shepherding judicial nominees and Supreme Court nominees through the process.....a lawyer.....is apparently oblivious to Supreme Court precedent as elucidated in
NIXON v. FITZGERALD, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) God help us all.
"...Petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts. Pp. 744-758.
(a) Although there is no blanket recognition of absolute immunity for all federal executive officials from liability for
civil damages resulting from constitutional violations, certain officials - such as judges and prosecutors - because of the special nature of their responsibilities, require absolute exemption from liability. Cf. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 . Determination of the immunity of particular officials is guided by the Constitution, federal statutes, history, and public policy. Pp. 744-748.
(b)
The President's absolute immunity is a functionally mandated incident of his unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by the Nation's history. Because of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While the separation-of-powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President's official acts. Pp. 748-754.
(c)
The President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the "outer perimeter" of his duties of office. Pp. 755-757.
(d) A rule of absolute immunity for the President does not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against his misconduct. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment, as well as the deterrent effects of constant scrutiny by the press and vigilant oversight by Congress. Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include [457 U.S. 731, 733] a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature. Pp. 757-758. "
The foregoing makes it clear that the President is immune from civil damages for Constitutional violations. I imagine the same separation of powers argument would apply to any attempt to expand or to confer a additional power of judicial review of Presidential acts (An equitable remedy). Seems like Mr. Scottish Law is attempting to amend the Constitution by statute. Swing and a Miss Arlen. Swing and a miss.