ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH! Now the freakin' Senate is going to attach the Line Item Veto

[in_cog_ni_to]

TO THE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE BILL!!!!:grr: THAT is the 'agreement' the freakin' Dems made with the freakin' repukes to get the ETHICS REFORM BILL through! To HELL with the middle class. There's no way the Minimum Wage Bill will pass now.:cry:

on edit: I just heard this on CNN...Wolfie's show.:(

[AX10]

1. If you ask me, "Line Item Veto" in

UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

[LSK]

13. wasnt it ruled so in the 90s?

[NYC Liberal]

16. If you ask the Supreme Court, they said the exact same thing. nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. Then what happens if they pass the freakin' thing? It goes back to court?

Why are the repukes doing this knowing it's been ruled as unconstitutional? Are they trying to challenge the SCOTUS? What are they doing?

[blm]

33. Hopefully it's been written to pass constitutionality issues.

I don't mind line-item vetos because even if a pres vetoes, it still goes back to congress for a revote. And Bush won't be president long enough to abuse it or congress as much as he would have liked.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. Also, it's a different court, loaded with Bushies & kowtowers to

executive power.

[in_cog_ni_to]

42. THAT'S my fear. Scalito and Roberts.

:(

[zbdent]

44. Like that would stop a Repuke ...

[Richard Steele]

2. That's some very Liebermanesque 'bipartisanship' right there. nm

[LSparkle]

3. THEY WENT FOR IT????????

(sorry for the caps but this is an outrage)

I CAN'T FUCKING BELIEVE HARRY REID WOULD AGREE TO THIS!!!!! THIS IS A HUGE BETRAYAL IF THAT'S THE DEAL THEY MADE ... Who needs fucking "signing statements" when RatBastard has a line-item veto?

But wasn't it ruled unconstitutional before?????

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Reid's excuse is he doesn't think the repukes will vote for the minimum wage increase.

This could be BAD. The repukes will either vote for the minimum wage increase and the PSYCHO will get the Line Item Veto OR the Dems will vote against the Bill BECAUSE the Line Item Veto is attached and we get NO MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE. Does this make ANY SENSE to anyone???*&^%$:grr:

[redqueen]

So what? Let them vote against it!

:mad:

What the HELL are they thinking?!

[eleny]

4. But didn't W say he was going to sign the Minimum Wage Bill?

I'm confused.

[AndyA]

5. WTF? Where did you hear this?? Source???

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. CNN. The Situation Room with Wolfie.

:grr:

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Relax, they'll probably just cut it out in conference committee

Being in power has huge advantages.

[eleny]

8. Keep reminding us!

It's been so long. :dunce:

[Ignacio Upton]

15. Will the Republicans be allowed to participate in the conference committee?

If not, then I wouldn't worry about this. Reid probably allowed this to be snuck in so the Republicans won't filibuster it.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Senate Republicans will, yes, I'm not sure about House Republicans

Under the Republican rules, minority members in the House do not sit on conference committees. I'm not sure if Pelosi has changed this. Regardless, the Democrats will have a majority on the committee since the control both houses and thus they can cut out whatever they want without any Republican votes.

It is much harder to try and filibuster something after it is out of conference because you have to reject the entire package.

[in_cog_ni_to]

47. I think Reid said it would be a public committee meeting WITH the House.

I'm sure I heard him say that yesterday when he was trying to get Judd Gregg to pull his stupid amendment.

[BayCityProgressive]

19. If they do this

they are fucking dumb as hell and obviously want a dictatorship. This along with his other powers would make him unstoppable.

[tigereye]

27. um

checks and balances? We actually have some now?

Yeah, the Democrats in the House and Senate want a dictatorship....

[Bobbie Jo]

7. Why in the hell did they cave ?

I am so disappointed. :shrug:

[redqueen]

10. Why does he need it, with the way he abuses Signing Statements?

Disgusting.

I'm so disappointed in some Dems right now.

[Rosemary2205]

11. even if it passed that woudl send it back to the house

and no way does Pelosi allow the line item veto. Which effectively kills minimum wage.

Reid should let them filibuster until doomsday instead.

[LSparkle]

21. Absolutely -- Pelosi DEFINITELY wears the pants in this Congress

Harry Reid has some real 'splainin to do ...

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. Yeah, but we won't get the minimum wage increase either.

:(

[LSparkle]

30. And that's an OUTRAGE ... that was one of the "6 for '06" promises

and I'm sure many working people were really believing this would finally happen. I'm all for stem cell research and cutting college loan interest rates, but I'm just heartbroken that THIS may be the one promise they can't keep ...

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. Me too.

:(

[Bill McBlueState]

14. you mean the one the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996

[derby378]

17. Please don't tell me the "100 hours" just ground to a halt...

:cry:

[aquart]

22. Stop that, Chicken Little. Right now!

The sky is NOT falling. Do you think vets like Pelosi and Reid weren't ready for this crap?

Did you think everything would just sail thru?

Get a grip. This is the BEGINNING, not the end.

[katsy]

23. This is the Senate. No "100 hours" promises to keep.

You're thinking of the House and Nancy Pelosi.

[derby378]

41. Okay, okay, my bad...

Nevermind...

[AndyA]

18. You know, this kind of BULLSHIT needs to stop.

Congress MUST make it impossible to tack on an unrelated thing to a bill. The Line Item Veto has nothing to do with the minimum wage, it should not be allowed to tack it on.

If there were an employer tax break for providing insurance to minimum wage workers, that might be acceptable, but pulling totally unrelated stuff out of someone's butt and tacking it onto another bill should stop. It's prone to abuse, and lots of good bills have gone down due to this crap.

I'm sick of this sh!t - SICK OF IT!!!

[Ignacio Upton]

20. Relax, we still have conference committee

This "poison pill" will be stripped off the final bill that goes to Bush.

[Pab Sungenis]

26. Didn't the new Pelosi-backed rules in the House

FORBID non-germane amendments? In which case, this amendment will have to be stripped off in conference, no ifs ands or buts.

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. Right. In the House there were NO AMMENDMENTS. Not so in the Senate.

:(

[Cass]

39. Good point. I thought this kind of thing wasn't going to be allowed anymore.

We really need some explanations about what is going on with this.

[Dems Will Win]

29. That's correct. Then the Rs would have to filibuster for the Line Item Veto

Reid is trying to using procedure to get the bill passed and deep six the line item veto. IT'll never pass the House, and it may even be filibustered in the Senate you know by our side.

[applegrove]

32. The way you Americans pass laws is too complicated. That's all.

:yoiks:

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. LOL! I know! It's crazy as hell and more difficult to understand than it needs to be.

:(

[Rex]

34. Yeah I hear they want to kill the bill.

I never thought it would pass. Can't give the working class more money.

[Cass]

37. Playing games with the Minimum Wage Bill really ticks me off.

I don't like this one bit. I'm not politically savvy enough to know all the gory details in a deal like this, but I can tell you that this game-playing with such an important bill really chaps my hide. Big time.

[meldroc]

38. Think we can bring back the physical filibuster?

Let me explain.

It used to be that in order to filibuster, you had to have a group of Senators physically reading out of the law dictionary & such to occupy the Senate floor and block passage.

Now, they don't have to do that anymore - the Senator just announces his intent to filibuster to the vice president or the president pro tempore, who informally polls the Senate to find out if there are enough votes for cloture. If there are, the bill goes through. If there aren't, the bill dies.

That preserves far too much dignity. If the Republicans really want the line-item veto so badly, make them read from the dictionary 24/7 live on C-SPAN so everyone in the country knows the lengths they'll go to to block necessary legislation.

[in_cog_ni_to]

45. I remember those days. They had to stand there for HOURS filibustering.

I like the idea of bringing it back.

[bluedog]

40. lest they forget: Democratic President in 2009

if this goes through.........then I hope like hell they bitch and moan when every thing they put in future bills after 09......will be vetoed for the next 40 years......

[tritsofme]

46. The GOP Congress gave Clinton a line-item veto in 1996

It was later ruled unconstitutional however.

This form of the veto is structured differently however and is thought to pass constitutional scrutiny.

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. The LAST person who should have this power is the psycho-in-chief.

He already has his signing statements. WTF is the difference? NOTHING.