ck4829
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-18-07 04:45 PM
Original message |
If we're going to have to have a line-item veto... |
|
Can't we say "Okay, you can have it... in 2009"?
|
aquart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-18-07 04:46 PM
Response to Original message |
1. We aren't going to have a line item veto. |
|
That's why it's being inserted all over the place. It's the deal breaker.
|
ThomCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-18-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. Right. It's the poison pill to kill legislation. |
LSparkle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-18-07 04:46 PM
Response to Original message |
2. What I'm afraid of is that SCOTUS will NOW rule it's OK |
|
It was "unconstitutional" when Bill Clinton had it but now that ChimpInChief may have the power, Scalito and co. will now reverse that decision.
|
evlbstrd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-18-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. It's extemely unusual for the SC |
|
to rule against their own precedents.
|
LSparkle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-18-07 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
Then it's a total "non-give give" ...
|
originalpckelly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-18-07 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. On some issues Scalia is actually a libertarian... |
|
Edited on Thu Jan-18-07 04:58 PM by originalpckelly
he might not be evil completely if he wasn't a devout Catholic.
|
Rosemary2205
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-18-07 04:49 PM
Response to Original message |
4. it's like smacking a hornet's nest |
AndyA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-18-07 04:53 PM
Response to Original message |
7. I'm glad to know this is not a done deal. |
|
I don't trust those Repugs with anything. They have proven time and time again over the last six years what slimeballs they are. They have no heart, they have no soul. All they have is corruption, lies, war, torture, death, and destruction.
That should be their platform. It's the only honest thing they can say about themselves.
|
SharonRB
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-18-07 04:54 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Why do they need it, anyway |
|
* is going to veto the bills just as they are, in total!
|
theboss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-18-07 04:55 PM
Response to Original message |
9. It was already struck down as Unconstitutional. |
SoCalDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-18-07 04:58 PM
Response to Original message |
11. It's a no-brainer.. SCOTUS already said so. |
|
What we NEED is SINGLE ISSUE legislation.
There is NO sense in attaching totally unrelated things onto bills that may or may not pass.
This is why Senators have a hard time running for president.
"He/she voted AGAINST medicare"..(translation a good medicare change was attached to killing SS legislation).
|
Karenina
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-18-07 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
|
SoCalDem nails it again. :yourock:
|
TechBear_Seattle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-18-07 05:11 PM
Response to Original message |
13. At the very earliest, as it would require amending the Constitution |
|
The Constitution only allows the President to sign or not sign the bill that is presented to him, not just parts of it.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 01st 2024, 04:27 AM
Response to Original message |