BREAKING!! President Obama will NOT sign the foreclosure bill

[bigdarryl]

YES YES YES!!! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[Raine1967]

1. here is a better link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/obama-pocket-veto-foreclosures_n_753987.html

Looks like he'll be using the Pocket Veto!

NICE.

[Go2Peace]

81. Only if they adjurn Tomorrow. Otherwise it goes into effect unless a real veto happens

I guess we see what happens Friday night, or this weekend if Congress stays in session

[POAS]

92. I think you have a misunderstanding

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.

From Time Magazine article ( http://thepage.time.com/2010/10/07/obama-to-pocket-veto-iron-act/ ):

Today, the White House announced that President Obama will not sign H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010, and will return the bill to the House of Representatives.

In this case the House is out of session (adjourned) even though the Senate remains and in any case the President has stated, through his spokesman, that he is sending the bill back to the house and it will not become law without their making revisions that address his concerns.

[Go2Peace]

102. You are right. I read that in a post later.

Thanks for the update.

[Daphne08]

2. Just read this as well

President Obama to Pocket-Veto Bill That Might Make It Easier to Foreclose on Homes
October 07, 2010 1:17 PM

ABC News has learned that President Obama will not sign – or “pocket veto” -- a bill that sailed through Congress that consumer groups warn would make it easier for banks to foreclose on homeowners.

The purpose of the “Interstate Recognition of Notarizations (IRON) Act -- written by Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Al., and currently sitting on the president’s proverbial desk -- is to streamline the recognition of notarizations across state lines. Aderholt said in a statement that the legislation “will help businesses around the nation by eliminating the confusion which arises when states refuse to acknowledge the integrity of documents notarized out-of-state. This issue continues to be a problem for businesses and individuals who engage in business across state lines.”

The bill passed the House in April and sailed through the Senate without debate at the end of September, as Congress adjourned for the Fall recess.

But consumer groups and some state officials noted that the legislation could have the unintended consequence of exacerbating an ugly trend of unfair home foreclosures. By requiring the acceptance of out-of-state notarizations, the bill could make it more difficult for homeowners to challenge improper foreclosure attempts.

See the rest Here:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/10/president-obama-to-pocket-veto-bill-that-might-make-it-easier-to-foreclose-on-homes.html

[no_hypocrisy]

17. No debate for this Bill! That is just wrong.

[Xipe Totec]

3. K&R!

[AtomicKitten]

4. Fabulous news!!!

:happydance:

[JVS]

5. Good.

[K8-EEE]

6. Can we give him some credit for a change?

Good on him!!

[dennis4868]

8. Some people here....

will not give him credit for anything...they only come here to trash the man because the world is not fixed in 20 months.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kenfrequed]

40. Your noise eclipses the signal.

Stop it.

Seriously.

[xiamiam]

49. i like that...noise eclipses the signal..yes, and this is a good signal..nt

[RoseMead]

64. Thank you. n/t

[displacedvermoter]

51. A good, smart, humanitarian thing to do.

And politically savvy, too boot!

Credit where it is due.

[Capitalocracy]

101. Now you're the one being cynical.

I'm one of those perennial critics, and I'm very willing to give credit on this one. Although let's not forget the consumer advocacy groups who pointed this out and put on the political pressure. Good news, plenty of credit to go around. No credit for Congress though, boo on them. Ugly work from them.

[JuniperLea]

12. Well said, K8-EEE

This is very good, and he does deserve credit. He's talked about this in the past and I think that went largely ignored. It starts getting easier to see who is offering constructive criticism and who is hating for hates sake.

I wonder if the banksters lobbied this through Congress, given they are under heat for bad foreclosures...

[mopinko]

28. +1

[eridani]

37. Yes, as long as you also give credit to the people who raised holy hell about it n/t

[peace frog]

54. Right on, sister

:thumbsup:

[pleah]

98. +1!

[kenfrequed]

39. Done!

He gets credit from me and I don't consider myself easily impressed. Maybe this, along with the personal changes (and Rahm Emmanuel leaving) will represent a shift back to the people that got him elected. I know I will be able to speak better of him with this kind of decision under his belt.

[xiamiam]

47. yes..long time coming..but gives me hope...nt

[chimpymustgo]

52. Happy to. Glad to see him do the right thing. It feels good.

[Confusious]

75. But will he veto it?

if he does nothing, it still becomes law.

[Dr Morbius]

91. Not true.

Article I, Section 7:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Since Congress is expected to adjourn within the time frame, a "pocket veto" is possible.

[Go2Peace]

82. Not yet, but this weekend if the PV stands

he'll get recognition for me. If the Reps or congress stay in session until Monday I will expect it to be ended with a true Veto for "the people".

[AllyCat]

100. I'll give credit on this one big time.

I've been disappointed with a lot of stuff he's done, but this shows he IS looking out for us, even if the Senate won't.

[leveymg]

7. Not cramdown, but a step in the right direction. As for Leahy, not his finest hour.

Reuters reported that, with the help of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), "Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pressed to have the bill rushed through the special procedure, after Leahy 'constituents' called him and pressed for passage." Previous versions of the bill have died in the Judiciary Committee after being passed by the House.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who has blogged about notarization problems, told HuffPost she also considered the timing of the legislation suspicious, coming in the midst of a series of announcements by banks that foreclosure procedures are under review. "It's almost like H.R. 3808 was a trap door."

[kentuck]

9. See! It's not that hard to do!

Challenge these SOB's!

[mzmolly]

10. :D

:toast:

[jgraz]

13. This is awesome news.

THIS is why I helped elect the guy. More of the same, please.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

74. I see what you did there.

;-)

[CoffeeCat]

14. Awesome!! Major props to Obama...

I'll get on his ass when he kow tows to the corporations, but I will also acknowledge when
he sides with the American people--and puts the corporation in their proper place.

Obama should get major kudos for rejecting this legislation. Our elected officials
who rushed this legislation through--because the banks were demanding that they do so--
should be strung up by the bells.

The banks saw a need for this legislation and they commandeered our Congress--and
had them pass this bill in record time. Days.

Major props to Obama for rejecting this bill.

:applause:

[toddwv]

15. This is a bill that should have NEVER passed through a Dem Congress.

What the HELL were they thinking?

Two steps forward, three steps back.

[Enthusiast]

104. Zactly. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

16. He's practicing for the next two year's major presidential activity.

Learn to love that veto!

[Kdillard]

25. I hope not. We really need to do everything we can to hold both the Senate and House.

[lamp_shade]

18. Wonderful news. I'm happy to rec.

[Arkana]

19. He's going to veto it?

[Kdillard]

22. Yep President Obama will pocket veto it. I am very happy with this development on

what was a monumental blunder on Sen Leahy's part.

[Go2Peace]

83. What the hell is all this misinformation about what a Pocket Veto does?

Updated: It sounds like the first option may be in place (according to post #41)


It is a work around, but not necessarily a show stopper. This might yet require a real veto.

3 possibilities:

1. Time runs out and congress has closed: Essentially vetoed

2. Time runs out and Congress is still in session: Law enacts. PV becomes a useless and inconsequential motion

3. Time runs out, Congress stays in session until Sunday (Republicans and Blue Dogs?), President steps in with a Real Veto and keeps it from becomming law.

I wish I had the kind of confidence to know that the administration will make sure that either 1 or 3 happens. If #3 happens that will be a serious use of power against business lobbies. That would indeed be bold.

But it is premature to pronounce anything real at this point.

[Ineeda]

20. terrific-- K&R

[EC]

21. Good

here's the definition of pocket veto: A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver in United States federal lawmaking that allows the President to indirectly veto a bill. The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays) while the United States Congress is in session. From the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7 states:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.

If the President does not sign the bill within the required time period, the bill becomes law by default. However, the exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days have passed and the President has not yet signed the bill. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. If the President does sign the bill, it becomes law. Ignoring legislation, or "putting a bill in one's pocket" until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto. Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden


On Edit: It cannot be overturned because the Congress is adjorned...Oh shit wait...Harry Reid promised Boner he'd have someone in the Senate at all times , shit...how does that work now? Does that mean IT WILL BECOME LAW BY DEFAULT? Just because Reid made that stupid promise to Boner?

Shit, shit, shit...someone, does this mean it becomes law by default?

[COLGATE4]

31. It appears so. Reid promised the Rethugs he'd keep the Senate

in session (so that Obama couldn't make any recess appointments!!!). So, if it's not adjourned, then it can vote.

[EC]

34. Thanks,

but the way it looks they don't even need to vote?

[onenote]

38. The House is adjourned and that's what matters

As I explained in another thread that raised the same concern that the deal struck to keep the Senate in session means that this bill can't be pocket vetoed:

When Congress is in session a bill can be vetoed by returning the bill, unsigned and with a written statement of objections,to the chamber from which the bill originated. If the bill can't be returned to that chamber because that chamber has adjourned, the bill will not become law if it is not signed within ten days of its receipt by the President.

The Senate is still in session, albeit with pro forma sessions each day. That was done as part of a deal on recess appointments (remember, its the Senate, not the House, that has to confirm presidential appointments). THe House is adjourned.

HR 3808 originiated in the House and therefore it can't be returned to the House and a pocket veto is in order. Now, admittedly, the House has only adjourned for a recess, but there is ample precedent that an intrasession recess of more than a few days (and the resolution adjourning the House states that the session will resume in November) is sufficient to make a pocket veto in order.

[EC]

41. Thanks,

That is what I was hoping.

[Go2Peace]

84. This is indeed good news. Thanks for the info

[Parker CA]

23. Kick and Rec!!

[golddigger]

24. Elizebeth Warren is in the house!

[vaberella]

27. What does Elizabeth Warren have to do with this?n/t

[golddigger]

33. You don't think she knew about this bill?

[vaberella]

42. She's not the President so the final decision is not hers?!

It seems you're implying that without Elizabeth Warren, Obama would not have made the right decision and that is what I'm calling out. I don't understand what is her significance in this decision----her presence here or not. I seem to see that you're giving credit to Elizabeth Warren for this great decision when in reality it has absolutely nothing to do with her.

[treestar]

45. Elizabeth Warren is the new god!

Not yet thrown under the bus!

[vaberella]

46. She was. A few people were pissed when they found out she wouldn't stay on for long.

But again..what the fuck does she have to do with this decision.

[golddigger]

53. You don't think she had some input on this? Come on!

[vaberella]

72. No. I don't think she had that much input, if any at all. n/t

[golddigger]

55. Have you ever heard of advisor's?

[vaberella]

70. Obama doesn't need her to be an advisor on this. Obama can read the document.

I don't understand credit given to her and not to Obama. Why the hell is it in some way that Warren was involved and Obama could not have done it on his own?! This shit is BS. Anyway to not give Obama the credit he deserves.

[Go2Peace]

85. I am with you on this

We don't always think alike Vaberella, but I am with you on this. Ultimately it is the President that makes the step, advisors can only advise. It looks like the Pocket Veto will likely hold, in which case he should get full credit.

[jgraz]

32. More importantly, Rahm is out.

[vaberella]

44. What the hell does that have to do with anything?!

Rahm is not President and never was. Fuckin' hell.

[jgraz]

48. google "intellectual capture"

[dave29]

61. Even better

http://tinyurl.com/2f9llzr

[jgraz]

65. Looks like someone just discovered "Let Me Google That For You"

It was popular about 6 months ago. Then it started being lame.

There's this site called "lolcats" you might want to check out. Those pics are hilarious! The cats always want cheeseburgers. So cute! You should really start a thread about it.

[dave29]

68. You are so much fun

as a fellow contrarian, hats off.

[kenfrequed]

50. To the progressives..

Who voted for President Obama and supported him, Rahm has been a great difficulty. As CoS he has isolated and cast a bubble around the president and seems to spend his spare time castigating the left and directing the Press Secretary to do likewise.

The connection is to progressives is that both of these represent the president moving back to the base and to those who provided him with this win. To us we have wasted almost two years on bipartisanship with the pack of crazy rabid rats that is the Republican party and allowed the conservadems to define the policy that we are allowed to try to build support for.

For us Tim Kaine stepping down from chair of the DNC would also be good news.

[Go2Peace]

86. LOL

Hopefully you read my other one first before this one. But I feel like the other poster on Rahm. (I believe it was evident) Rahm had serious sway over the President. To the President's credit he is no longer in that position (I really can't believe that a governorship was attractive unless Rahm was feeling like he was losing relevance).

Rahm was a bad influence and (IMO) a poor strategist). But indeed this is the President's call. He get's credit.

[cascadiance]

116. I wonder if the timing of this bill and Rahm Emmanuel leaving are connected...

Inquiring minds want to know!

Still seems like there's a lot we're not being told yet on this!

[ljm2002]

26. That is excellent news!

Thanks President Obama, the little people are in need of a little support these days...

[d_b]

29. There's the guy I voted for

k&r

[bvar22]

30. K&R

And I welcome the opportunity to applaud the President if this in fact proves to be true.
I've been burned by the Kabuki Theater too many times to join the Victory Parade today,
especially since this is the season for October Surprises and empty promises.

[femmedem]

35. Yay! He heard us!

I know when I called, the operator had received many calls on this bill.

[Waiting For Everyman]

36. Very nice.

I'm not sure about the recess thing, but I'm sure Obama is sure. And I do not think he would say no, and then let it get through. He knows that wouldn't fly.

Good job, Mr. President! Thank you! :applause:


I suppose the banksters are surprised and perturbed, oh wait, I mean "Leahy's constituents". They're definitely on the hot seat now. Just where they should be.


I'm picturing Obama as a goalie today, lol. I think "the staff" was a little asleep at the switch at first, but we helped 'em out. ;)

[PVnRT]

43. K&R

[DURHAM D]

56. So Obama is going to "boldly" pocket the bill.

The senate is still in session. If they are still in session in 9 days the bill automatically becomes law.

Anyone know when the senate will leave town?

[onenote]

57. Once again: The House, which originated the bill, is not in session.

The Constitution requires that, in order to veto a bill, it be returned to the chamber that originated it. The House has adjourned until mid November and thus the position of the White House, like the position taken by previous administrations, is that it can't be returned and thus a pocket veto is in order.

My guess, moreover, is that like previous administrations, the president also will use a "protective return" by sending his "pocket veto" message back to the Clerk of the House.

The principal significance of these tactics is that if the bill is pocket vetoed, it can't be overriden. Given Leahy's statement that the bill as passed is going to be changed, its really a moot point.

[DURHAM D]

58. Leahy's comments mean absolutely nothing.

I hope you are correct about the senate being in session not changing the rule about the use of pocket veto.

What exactly are your credentials?

[onenote]

60. I have served as legislative counsel to a large trade organization for many years

I deal on a regular basis with legislative issues and over my career have had to research and deal with veto threats, pocket veto threats, etc.

The folks in the administration, like administrations before this one, know the history. They know how other presidents have handled these situations. They know that the approach that has evolved is for a president to assert the right to pocket veto a bill when the chamber that originated it (and to which it would have to be returned) is not in session for an extended time. They also know that Congress traditionally takes a narrower view -- at its most extreme, the congressional view is that pocket vetoes can only occur during the period between the adjournment sine die of the second session of Congress. Others would acknowledge the right to pocket veto a bill follwoing the sine die adjournment of the relevant chamber between the first and second sessions of a congress.

As noted above, the way the dispute is handled these days is for the president to assert the right to pocket veto and to also make a "protective return" of the bill. On a few occasions, efforts have been made to override a bill that the president claimed to have pocket vetoed. If those efforts had been successful, the issue might well have gone to court for resolution. But they didn't succeed.

One interesting case involves a bill that (I believe) Bush I claimed to have pocket vetoed during an intrasession recess. Rather than try to override the bill, Congress passed another bill that stated that it repealed the previous bill -- thus presuming that it had not been successfully vetoed (no protective return was used in that case). The president signed the new bill but issued a signing statement stating that the repeal provision was of no effect because the provision had never become law as a result of his veto.

Yes, I'm taking Leahy at his word that (a) there won't be an attempt to override the veto or to indicate in any way that the bill had become law. I suspect, based on past precedent, that there will be a published statement in the COngressional Record indicating that the bill was vetoed (based on my assumption that there will be a "protective return" of the bill to the House clerk.) That doesn't preclude Congress from reintroducing the same bill or a different version, with the latter approach being the one that Leahy seems to be suggesting.

[DURHAM D]

79. Thank you -

Thank you very much for your thorough answer. It is obviously knowledge based and not founded on a biased or hopeful assumption. Sometimes on DU people make extremely aggressive assertions based on wishes and sand instead of facts. It makes me a little crazy.

Again, thanks. I would have responded sooner but was out to dinner.

[onenote]

93. no problem. I actually had to look into this last spring

when legislation I was following got to the president in late may but hadn;t been signed by him as the Memorial Day recess approached. Everyone I worked with wanted a clear answer as to what it meant if the legislation wasn't signed within ten days. So a lot of this information is still pretty fresh in my mind. The bad news is that, as my post indicates, the answers aren't simple. The good news was that the legislation I was following was signed before the beginning of the Memorial Day recess.

[Moosepoop]

66. United States Constitution - Article 1, Clause 2

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Hopefully the authors of this were credentialed enough. :)

[Myrina]

59. is there a difference between 'will not sign' and 'will veto' ?

:shrug:

[onenote]

62. not really

THere are two ways that a bill can be "vetoed". One is for the president not to sign it and to return it to the chamber of congress that originated the bill with a message stating the president's objections. The other is not to sign within 10 days of receiving it and the chamber that originated the bill is not in session to receive the "return" of the bill. In both instances the key action (or inaction) is that President doesn't sign the bill.

Its a strange process that has a lot of ins and outs and controversy surrounding it. As a result, the key thing is that while the President has said he is employing the "pocket veto" on the bill, the word from the White House also seems to be that he will be "returning" the bill to the HOuse. In short, like previous presidents, he's covering himself from both directions.

[kentuck]

63. I think if the President pockets it for 10 days...

it is an automatic veto.

[kentuck]

71. Correction:

If the Congress is adjourned and does not come back, then it would be a veto, I think??? If the Congress was in session and the President pocketed the bill, then it would become a law? Any clarification here??

[jenmito]

73. It would be a veto. He wants Congress to FIX it. It won't become law in this form. n/t

[Ken Burch]

67. OK...does that mean he'll VETO it, or let it become law WITHOUT his signature?

n/t.

[jenmito]

69. It means it will go back to Congress for them to fix it. n/t

[Confusious]

76. How so?

As president he can do one of three things.

veto
sign it
not sign and let it pass into law.

I guess he can send it back to congress within ten days. My bad.

[jenmito]

78. No-it WON'T "pass into law" if he doesn't sign it. Here's an article that explains it:

The White House said Thursday it is sending the bill back to Congress for revisions, and that the administration would work with lawmakers on it.

<snip>

Obama used a rare "pocket veto" — a tactic for killing a bill that can be used only when Congress is not in session. It essentially takes effect when the president fails to sign a bill within 10 days. Obama has yet to issue a traditional veto during his presidency; he has used a pocket veto once before, in December 2009, to address what amounted to a technicality on a defense spending bill.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101007/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_foreclosures

[Confusious]

80. yea I noticed when I looked it up

That was the "my bad"

[kentuck]

96. Congress is in session...

They made an agreement just a few days ago so there would be no recess appointments. Remember?

[onenote]

99. Only the Senate. Not the House. And this bill originated in the House

THe House is adjourned until mid November. In order to veto the bill the President would have to return it to the chamber where it originated and this bill originated in the House. Thus, it is position of the executive branch that a pocket veto is in order. As I've posted elsewhere, I would expect that the president will also employ a tactic used by his predecessors in this situation, which is a "protective return" of the bill to the Clerk of the House. The White House will treat the bill as having been pocket vetoed; Congress probably will treat the bill as having been formally vetoed. Either way, its vetoed and since there will be no attempt to override the veto, it really doesn't matter which way its done.

[kentuck]

110. Thanks onenote...

DU is a great education device. DU = Democracy University? :-)

[Lord Helmet]

77. rec'd to 100

[Canuckistanian]

87. K&R

BTW, when was the last time a President used a "pocket veto"?

[me b zola]

88. K&R!

[kentuck]

89. The Senate has not adjourned...

They made a deal the other day, bi-partisan, that they would have pro-forma sessions to keep the Senate open. What does that mean? If the President holds the bill for 10 days, that is the same as signing the bill??

[onenote]

97. the bill originated in the House, so its the House it would have to be returned to

in order to veto it. ANd the House has adjourned until mid November.

That said, there is disagreement between the executive and legislative branches about whether a bill can be pocket vetoed during an intrasession recess. That is why, if I had to guess, President Obama will follow the practice of his predecessors and both claim to have pocket vetoed the bill AND utilize a "protective return" by sending the bill back to the Clerk of the House, unsigned.

[grahamhgreen]

90. Finally proud!

[JoeyT]

94. K&R

Damned good news. Letting this go through would've been a disaster.

[Rhiannon12866]

95. K&R! Excellent!

But I'm hardly surprised... :)

[Enthusiast]

103. Obama is restoring my faith.

I wrote and asked him not to sign. Now, the rest of the Democrats that signed remain in my dog house.

[The Uncola]

105. It's ok "news," however..

.. it would have a good time show a real spine for Obama to actually have VETOED this piece of shit outright, instead of trying to play both sides against the middle (in case you don't realize it, that would be US.) Why it that it's so gawddamn hard for those we elected to take a stand for US, and not just the criminal rich? What's it gonna take to get the freakin' Dem Congresscritters to understand that there is no such thing as a "routine business bill" when it comes to dealing with the banksters? Good effen grief, how many times do they have to get handed their collective ass before it sinks in.

REPUBLICANS PLAY DIRTY ALWAYS!

[vaberella]

106. ~sigh~ This post is something else. n/t

[The Uncola]

108. Thank you.

I always enjoy passive aggressive snarkiness. In Minnesota it's an art form. It's even got a name.

:hi:

[vaberella]

109. I aim to please. n/t

[onenote]

111. let me try to explain why you are mistaken

The only difference between a "regular" veto and a "pocket veto" is that the former can be overriden and the latter cannot. So, from that standpoint, the stronger action by the President was to assert that he was pocket vetoing the bill. Now, because the issue of whether a pocket veto is in order when the House has not adjourned sine die and is merely in an extended intrasession recess has never been completely resolved, what recent administrations have done -- and what I would bet the Obama administration will do -- is claim that its pocket vetoed the bill but also engage in "protective return" of the bill to the House Clerk.

[The Uncola]

112. Excuse me?

WTF makes you think I am unaware of any such thing? Who the samhell are you to tell me what I do and do not "know?"

If those Congresscritters did indeed, try to overide the VETO, they, unlike how they ran this PIECE OF SHIT BILL, under the radar, would have to put their name and political future on it. Save your condescending claptrap for somebody that isn't aware of how legislation actually works, pal, 'cuz this lifelong Democrat went to school when they still required course in Civics and American Government.

Fail.

[onenote]

113. wow! too much caffeine this morning? The fail is all yours.

I guess it was what you wrote that made me think you weren't aware of the fact that (a) there is little substantive difference between an out-of-session pocket veto and an in-session "regular" veto and (b) that the only difference between the two types of veto is that the latter can be overriden and the former can't. I refer you back to your words: "it would have a good time show a real spine for Obama to actually have VETOED this piece of shit" outright."

All I did was point out that there is no difference between a regular veto and a pocket veto other than that a pocket veto arguably is stronger. But more to the point that you still don't seem to get: in order to claim a regular (rather than pocket) veto, Obama would have to concede that bills can't be pocket vetoed when Congress is merely in an intrasession recess, a concession that no administration will or should make since it limits their power in the future. Using the pocket veto was the way the administration showed spine, by standing up for the principle that it can use that power even when Congress has not adjourned sine die.

Anyway, to the extent that there is an argument that not claiming to have pocket vetoed the bill would be a good maneuver, I am open to hearing it and considering it.

[Capitalocracy]

114. In this case, I'll take the effective veto over taking names.

We know who gave this tacit approval. Everyone. I'm just glad it was stopped.

One thing I will mention, however... this is a victory not in terms of new positive legislation, but in terms of maintaining the status quo against new negative legislation. And that shouldn't be the case when we have the majority. Pathetic on the part of Congress. But don't worry about trying to invoke a veto override... first of all, they might not do it unless they had the votes, so if we got the names, we'd lose this victory, and second, we already know their names.

:hi:

[onenote]

115. there are at least two reasons we don't have to worry about an override

First, Leahy has already indicated that, now that he understands what the bill would do in the context of foreclosures, he doesn't support it in its current form and without his support, it never gets to the floor for an override vote, even if the House tried to override, which it won't because Pelosi isn't bringing it back up either. Second, given the outcry over the bill, Congress isn't about to make this the bill in which they "test" whether a pocket veto is effective during an intrasession recess.

[Gman]

117. You didn't know WTF you're talking about and now

you're back peddling. Otherwise you wouldn't have stated he should "show a real spine for Obama to actually have VETOED this piece of shit outright." A pocket veto is the smart thing to do. Being smart is sometimes misunderstood as not having spine for those that don't know.

[The Uncola]

118. Welcome..

... to ignore.

[Lucky 13]

107. Choosing the public over corporations... excellent!

I want to see more of it.