"But put the point in reverse: If the presidential signing statements are no big deal, why does the president make them? One reason is that it skews the administration of a statute by presidential subordinates before a matter gets into court. A second--and more troubling--point relates to the larger question of the role of judicial review."
* btw - i'm a fan of stephen jay gould. i've been reminded of some of his work lately given the zidane headbutting thing. gould wrote about a mindset/fallacy that he calls something like 'but for' - he uses an example some baseball story (my baseball knowledge is near-zip) - something about one of (two of?) the new york teams, and some 'curse' - where one of the teams 'would have won' the championship way-back-when 'but for' some misfield. in actual fact, the misfield didnt actually determine the championship, but if the misfield didnt happen, then the game would have gone to an extra innings, or extra game or something. i've seen the same thing in the media in the wake of zidane's red-card - according to this coalescing meme, france would have won the world cup 'but for' the headbutt (i'm not exactly sure whether head-to-chest is a headbutt or a chestbutt)
trezeguet may have missed his penalty anyway, and even if he didnt, or if someone else took the penalty, it still would have been 5-all and a new set of penalties.
i have no particular point to make - other than i'm reminded of gould, and it's kinda funny how 'history' is made.
that is all.