Seems like Team Obama has some concerns with the possibilities for malfeasance with the bill we talked about last night. Good.
Reader Interactions
46Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.
The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.
Consistently wrong since 2002
We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.
No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.
And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.
Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.
Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.
Tick tock motherfuckers!
“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”
🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵
The words do not have to be perfect.
rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius
Accountability, motherfuckers.
Technically true, but collectively nonsense
Infrastructure week. at last.
Black Jesus loves a paper trail.
Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.
It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.
Battle won, war still ongoing.
Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.
We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.
Bark louder, little dog.
Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.
BerkeleyMom
Harry Reid can’t get aid for the 9/11 responders through the Senate but this bill for the banks–no problem–and a voice vote. At least we now know what the Dems and Repubs all agree on!!
New Yorker
There you go again with your worship of the president, John. He didn’t even get us the public option!
Mnemosyne
I’m totally stealing Steve’s snark from the thread below:
Roger Moore
I think you left out the “OBAMA IS WORSE THAN BUSH HE SOLD US OUT!!” tag.
Zifnab
@BerkeleyMom: I want to know how this shit got through the House.
But yeah, I’m amazed Reid had time on his busy Senate schedule to organize a vote. If this bill was so important, why not just pin it to the stockpile of financial reforms already waiting in limbo?
I am incredibly grateful to see Obama do the right thing on this, though.
mistermix
I’d be impressed if he pulled out the bully pulpit and lit the bill on fire on top of it. This doesn’t do it for me.
Morbo
@Zifnab: The answer is that there wasn’t a vote. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
eemom
Please see the comments on the previous thread as to why the passage of this thing actually might NOT have been a nefarious plot; and the fact that nobody has yet been able to figure out if the bill itself actually does do anything bad, which is why Obama vetoed it.
General Stuck
But isn’t a pocket veto dangerously close to an Obama package. Just sayin”
KS
I hope a procedural wonk can answer this question:
Can he legally use a pocket veto in this case? I mean, the Senate is still holding pro forma sessions so that he can’t use his big, bad recess appointment power. A pocket veto requires an adjournment of Congress, which, I believe, has not happened due to this stupid Senate “compromise” to keep the Senate in session.
If he takes no action, but Congress is still in session, the law takes full effect after 10 days.
I don’t understand why he just doesn’t say “fuck it, this needs to be vetoed,” but then again, we’re stuck with the Obama we have, not the Obama we wish we had.
les
Interesting. I wonder if there is something nasty buried in the bill, or if it’s just a good chance to throw a bone to lefties–not that there’s anything wrong with that. Fact on the ground is, most states already have their own similar statute, as least as far as recognizing out of state notaries goes.
General Stuck
@General Stuck:
Lame, oh well, back to galt.
srv
Obama is just holding out for a better deal. This bill will be back.
Steve
@KS: If Congress wants to take away the pocket veto power while they’re not open for regular business, they need to formally designate an agent to receive veto messages on their behalf while they’re away.
Poopyman
@KS:
No he can’t. As DDay sez:
Suck It Up!
@KS:
Uhm, I think Obama and his team are aware of Senate rules and such.
Trinity
The fact that this bill passed the fucking dysfunctional Senate easily, quickly, and quietly is reason enough for me to not like it one damn bit. Almost nothing has passed through the Senate without a fight. If this was passed quickly and oh so very quietly by the Senate then I KNOW it is a bill that would have fucked the little guy.
steviez314
This veto makes us look weak in the eyes of Al-Qaeda’s notaries.
Nick
@KS:
Either he doesn’t know enough about it to flat out kill it or he sees the possibility of a GOP congress overriding the veto.
lamh32
@KS:
okay,
color me confused. all morning and some of last night, all we heard about this bill is that Obama “BETTER” veto it.
So Obama “vetoed” it, but since he used a “pocket” veto, now the same people who are saying that Obama “BETTER” veto it are saying that the pocket veto makes the veto somehow “less than”.
Doesn’t this just support the proposition that nothing Obama does will satisfy even his stauchest critics and even “supporters”, it’s always gonna be “less than”?
another reason why I’m glad not to be in politics, I’d never be elected or re-elected, cause I’d spend most of my time telling everyone to “f” off.
Ah well, on to the next one…
General Stuck
The significance of a genuine pocket veto when congress is out of session is that it cannot be over ridden. There is legal ambiguity over what constitutes adjournment, whether it’s intrasession or at the end of a two year congress. I know the Senate is in Pro forma, but didn’t know the House was too, and the purpose of the pocket veto not becoming law automatically after ten days is held within that determination of adjournment, where it is critical the question of whether a congress is present to vote for over ride, or not. But since the WH says it is sending the bill back, that in effect is a regular veto, seems to me, or close enough for government work.
Sounds like the congress was sending up a test balloon, that got shot full of holes pronto, and they won’t push it.
Zifnab
@Morbo: Well, there was a vote. It was passed with a voice vote and no one tried to bog down the process.
That said, Reid still had to bring the bill up and hold the voice vote. Being the Majority Leader, he could have scheduled a vote on the bill right behind a bill Coburn or McConnell would object to. Then let the filibusters fly and watch everything done the schedule get pushed off the back end – assuming the Republicans consider notaries less important than whatever is in front of it.
The Majority Leader controls the schedule, and when he schedules Republican Friendly votes in front of Democrat Friendly votes, he indicates which legislation he actually cares to see passed.
Brighton
A plain english explanation of foreclosures, Alan Grayson’s creepyness, and what Obama just vetoed (we hope).
Steve
@Poopyman: The Supreme Court ruled in 1929 that Congress must not only be “in session,” but open for legislative business. That means there has to be a quorum, not just one guy stopping by to bang the gavel for 10 seconds. So a pocket veto is okay, although I understand Obama is playing it safe by returning the bill just in case.
Subsequent Supreme Court decisions clarified that if Congress wants to take the pocket veto power off the table during an interim adjournment, they can designate an agent to receive veto messages. They haven’t done that at the moment, however.
rikyrah
@Trinity:
call me a cynic
ICAM
Steve
@lamh32:
Personally, I will not be satisfied unless and until I hear Obama say “FUCKING VETOED.”
Adding “Get that weak shit outta here” is optional, but it would be nice.
Mnemosyne
@lamh32:
According to dday, he actually did better than a pocket veto — he rejected it both by sending it back to the House for review and by putting it in his pocket. Dday called it a “belt and suspenders” move to be absolutely sure that it was officially vetoed and would stay vetoed.
But, hey, the haters will believe what they want to believe.
Zuzu's Petals
Okay, I’m going to pose a question I brought up late in the earlier thread.
The federal ESIGN law already requires recognition of electronic notarizations with regard to certain transactions that occur in or affect interstate commerce (see subd. (g)). There are certain exceptions, including, as someone pointed out in the earlier thread, court documents (not the same as documents presented to a court as evidence of a transaction).
Assuming this bill would extend the application of this requirement …how is this so substantively different as to raise ethical questions?
Michael
That notary bill was BAPCA 2005 in a lot of respects. Seems like a nice idea, but the consequences were unexplored.
Also, while appearing benign, in the hands of our lazy fucking institution coddling anti-individual judiciary it would be a complete disaster.
They wonder why I no longer campaign for them, donate to them or put out yard signs for them.
lol
@lamh32:
Over at GOS, the usual suspects are calling him a pussy for not using a “real” veto and that this is just more proof Obama is a coward.
Tractarian
But this bill is barely one page long.
That means it has to be a good bill, right?
John S.
And I will repeat myself from the other thread:
And so they won’t. But they REALLY like Obama, if only he’d do the right thing. My ass.
Mark S.
Wow, I did not expect Obama to do that. As for
What exactly did the Senate Dems get for agreeing to that? It better be good.
arguingwithsignposts
Pocket veto, belt-and-suspenders veto. What is with all the haberdashery?
Mark S.
@arguingwithsignposts:
Yeah, I’ve never heard of the belt-and-suspenders veto. Is there a top-hat-and-monocle veto?
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@John S.:
I’m just a middle-of-the-road, common-sense American, and therefore judged the situation correctly, as we always do:
Now gimme a terrorist fist-jab, balloonbagger!
KS
@Mark S. (#33)
The Dems got the ability to vote on things. The GOP said they would take their ball and go home (and procedurally filibuster everything) if they didn’t agree to the pro forma sessions.
Yes, that’s what we are dealing with. One side that pretty much won’t play, and another side who won’t hammer them for being such WATBs.
@lamh2 (#20)
I first said that I wasn’t sure if the pocket veto would work, procedurally. See @Poopyman (#15)
I also lamented that he refused to take out the big stamp and stamp that bill VETOED before returning it to Congress. If it’s vetoed, I’m happy. I’m just not sure it’s vetoed – and apparently none of us are sure.
There will be no 2/3 override of a veto in both houses. Bills that are introduced in a Congress die if not enacted in that Congress. Thus, even if the GOP wins, the veto must be overridden with the current 111th Congress, not the 112th that will be sworn in on Jan 3d, 2011.
Assuming all the GOP vote to override, 24 dems + Ben Nelson + Joe Lieberman would have to defect in the Senate. In the house, assuming all GOP vote to override, all 54 Blue Dogs and 57 other democrats would have to vote to override. It’s not happening if Obama vetoes it, especially if he has a statement on the order of: “Banks are stealing houses that aren’t theirs. Shouldn’t they at least work for it?”
JenJen
@mistermix:
During a nationally televised news conference, or it didn’t happen.
Don
I’m sure you mean well, Brighton, but that post of your own that you link to is borderline unreadable. It also fails to provide any support that the content of this bill – requiring the recognition of documents notarized in another state so long as they follow that state’s rules – provides any real harm.
There’s no indication that this bill prevents anyone from challenging the validity of a fraudulent document.
Steve
@KS: I believe what Democrats got in exchange for the pro forma sessions is that Republicans agreed to approve a whole bunch of Executive Branch nominees that they had been unreasonably holding up for the last few months.
John Bird
Don’t you mean good that the media did its job for once and forced Obama to veto a hypocritical bill that he would have signed into law otherwise?
Or are we still officially pretending that didn’t happen? Assuming we’re not still officially pretending that politicians deserve the benefit of the doubt.
jwb
@lol: More evidence that none of this can possibly be real, and I’m actually dreaming a Hollywood farce. Because all of this would be ridiculously funny if I didn’t have to live it.
Mnemosyne
@John Bird:
Ah, I knew the firebaggers would manage to turn this into a deep, dark conspiracy that only they were able to thwart.
Because of course merely pointing out that this bill might have unintended bad effects would never have convinced Obama not to sign it. No, he had to be forced not to sign it.
Odie Hugh Manatee
Obama does the right thing and we get forty-some posts about it here? Wow, how underwhelming.
C’mon you crazies, get it in gear! I am sure that you can find something nefarious in this pocket veto. Dig deep into your conspiracy theory bag of baddies and let loose!
Keith G
Where was “Russ” Feingold on this. Couldn’t one lionhearted progressive have stopped this by objecting?
Why the fuck doesn’t our side have fighters?
Notaris Online
He sure has some concerns indeed