Congress Predicted to Ignore Veto Threat

[Osolomia]

Senator Predicts Congress Will Ignore Bush Veto Threat and Block Expanded TV Ownership

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Nov. 11 — Lawmakers will probably ignore a White House veto threat and vote to block companies from owning more television stations, a pivotal senator said Tuesday.

If the prediction by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, comes true, President Bush will have to decide whether to veto a massive spending bill over the issue. It would be Bush's first veto and it would come less than a year before he faces re-election next November.

"If it's in an omnibus bill," Stevens said, using the term to describe the enormous spending measure, "that's not a vetoable item. He wouldn't veto the whole blasted thing because of that."

More...
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031111_1608.html

Can anyone explain how legislation becomes law or got a link to a good dummies guide? What are the consequences of a veto or does everyone just go oh well and move along?

[DUreader]

1. vetos can be over-ridden

with 2/3rds of congress

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snippy]

8. Why would you say these same rules "now" apply to judicial nominations?

Republicans filibustered Fortas' nomination to become Chief Justice. And when the democrats controlled the Senate every individual Senator, regardless of party, could block a judicial nomination. There was some shit-for-brains republican, from Oklahoma I think, who blocked all of Clinton's nominations for a while, judicial and otherwise. If those rules still existed there would be no filibusters.

The lying hypocrites in the republican party should be exposed for the foul dishonest filth they are being on this issue. Bush has had 168 judicial nominees confirmed (100 when the Senate was controlled by democrats) and four blocked. No president has ever had such a high percentage of judicial nominees confirmed. The vacancy rate on the federal is at its lowest rate in 13 years.

Republicans are being dishonorable, hypocritical, lying sacks of shit on this.

[dusty64]

12. Should be exposed is right, but

that won't happen as long as the media is controlled by rethug loving corporations.

[snippy]

17. I emailed the democrats with advice on how to get media coverage.

But it probably won't happen. My email:

Dear Senators:

I have read that Senate republican leaders plan to devote 30 straight hours of debate next week in their bid to confirm a handful of judicial nominees being blocked by democrats. If this occurs it will present a huge opportunity for democratic Senators to do something good for this country.

This debate will receive a fair amount of media coverage when it begins. Democrats need to seize this opportunity to make this debate receive a huge amount of media coverage and to determine what that coverage includes. If the democratic Senators are bold and brave they can dominate that coverage.

Every democratic Senator needs to make exactly the same point when it is his or her turn to speak. That point is that the republicans are lying hypocrites about the blocking of Bush's judicial nominees. The democrats should not be overly polite or genteel, or even respectful. The making of that point needs to be shocking in its bluntness and brutal honesty. It needs to be exceptionally newsworthy.

Democratic Senators need to emphasize these facts:

1. Republicans blocked 167 Clinton judicial nominees.

2. Democrats have blocked 4 Bush judicial nominees.

3. Bush has had 168 judicial nominees confirmed in less than 3 years, a record number for that length of time.

4. The vacancy rate in the federal courts is at its lowest level in 13 years.

If the Democratic Senators hammer home these 4 facts and accuse the republicans of being hypocrites and liars over and over and over again, the media will cover that story and it will be big news. The media will report the actual facts concerning judicial nominations. The media will report the lying hypocrisy of the republicans. People will remember that the republicans were exposed as hypocritical liars.

If the democrats talk about the qualifications or lack thereof of the nominees it will be boring and people will remember only that democrats are blocking some of Bush's nominees. It will be playing right into the republican plan.

Exposing the republicans for the hypocritical liars they are will have ramifications far beyond the judicial confirmation process. The American people will remember it in other contexts as well.

The republican party is spending huge amounts of time and money to define the democratic party in false terms. It is time for the democratic party to define the republican party truthfully. Please take this opportunity to begin.

Sincerely,

XXX

[iam]

16. They have never

been honorable, non-hypocritical, honest sacks of shit on anything.

[Grins]

2. His "First" veto!

And not an honorable one either. You'd like to think of a President would using his veto power to stand on principle. Something worth fighting for. He never used it on the massive farm bill or other appropriations. But he will use it now to protect – corporate interests? Different principles I guess. Sad.

[htuttle]

3. Here's how I learned the process... (do they still show these?)

http://www.schoolhouserock.tv/Bill.html

...

I'm just a bill
Yes, I'm only a bill
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill
Well, then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the president to sign
And if he signs me, then I'll be a law.
How I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.

Boy: You mean even if the whole Congress says you should be a law, the president can still say no?

Bill: Yes, that's called a veto. If the President vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress and they vote on me again, and by that time you're so old...

Boy: By that time it's very unlikely that you'll become a law. It's not easy to become a law, is it?

Bill: No!

...

Vetoes can be overridden by a 2/3 majority vote. Having Congress override a veto from a President of their own party would be considered a serious slap, and would be fairly unlikely.

[La_Serpiente]

4. AND IT WILL BE DONE BY HIS OWN PARTY!!!!

This time, the White House cannot blame it on the Democrats because it is the Republicans that are in power.

[Lefta Dissenter]

5. www.congress.org

link on the left side for "Capitol Hill Basics"

though it's not nearly as entertaining as the Schoolhouse Rock song!

:yourock:

[goobergunch]

6. How Our Laws Are Made - the Hyper-Comprehensive Official PDF Version

can be found here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_documents&docid=f:hd197.pdf

That's how I learned...highly recommended but very lengthy. If you want a briefer version, use the other recommendations.

Incidentally: A veto can be overridden by 2/3rds of each house of Congress.

:bounce: :bounce:

[Osolomia]

11. Thanks all, the bit I don't get though is the Committee

that "reconciles" the House and Senate versions of a bill before it gets sent to the president to sign. Who decides who's on the committee, and who votes on the final version, the committee, the full Senate? Is it the results of that final vote that determines if there's enough to override a veto?

[kainah]

13. reconciliation bills

these are very specific bills that have to do with the budget process and they have extremely limited rules in the Senate.

Conference committees, on the other hand, are often said to be "reconciling" the bill & that is, I think, what you're confused about. What happens is this: the House passes one form of a bill & the Senate passes their own form of the essentially same bill. Then each house appoints "conferees" who get together to work out a compromise. Then, they bring the "reconciled bill" back to the full House and Senate and each passes the SAME bill which is then sent to the president.

What the House and Senate members on the Dem side have been screaming about for weeks now is that the appointed conferees are NOT meeting in regular conferences. Instead, the repugs are holding their own meetings, without including Dem conferees, and they are cutting deals among themselves and then presenting bills back on the floor of the House and/or Senate with the minority given only a matter of hours to read the bill. And conference committees have full power to change every single bit of a bill if they want, in order to reach a compromise.

Does that help?

[snippy]

9. Bush is all bulge and no bone. He won't veto this.

[0007]

10. junior will slither away like a snake!

junior is all bulge and no bone

[kainah]

14. don't count on that

the ones who pull the strings have A LOT at stake in this. Every time I've thought that he wouldn't possibly do that, he does it. My guess is that the repugs are hoping he DOES veto this & that bails them out because they can probably sustain the veto.

[dusty64]

15. Sounds about right.

We have to pressure our "reps" on this one. I'm surprised it made it past the House "leadership" as they were trying to block it from coming to a vote. A veto will probably be the end of it unless they receive a LOT of calls and letters from the People.