White House Considering Veto Of Notarization Recognition Bill


The White House said on Thursday the administration is reviewing legislation that could make it more difficult for homeowners to challenge unjustified foreclosure actions. White House officials held meetings on the bill to weigh whether the president should sign or veto the legislation, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

[. . . ]Gibbs said after officials considered potential effects of the bill, "I think in general obviously there is concern, ultimately, about the situation." He said the White House may disclose later today a decision on whether the president will sign the bill.

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | Obama To Veto Notarization Recognition Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Veto it, Barack (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:13:18 PM EST
    or we don't vote.  Next month and in 2012.  Except for your primary challenger, of course.

    It's that simple.

    how long can this sit on his desk? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:17:33 PM EST
    Article 1, Section 7 (none / 0) (#7)
    by BTAL on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:46:32 PM EST
    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.

    He doesn't need to sign it, just sit on it for 10 days.  Especially, since Congress didn't adjorn - the little deal Reid made.


    That's where I am at on this (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:17:46 PM EST
    I can't take anymore.  

    So, I am to believe that the (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:09:19 PM EST
    president needs to "consider" this bill because he wasn't even aware that such a thing was happening - that the two times it was before the Judiciary Committee and rejected, no one in the administration with the JC on speed-dial thought to mention it to the president or his advisors.  That while this whole foreclosure issue has been boiling over, the WH was oblivious to this legislation - and no one even told him that after months of being in limbo, this was going to be fast-tracked with a voice-vote, and it just so happened that all of a sudden banks and states were imposing moratoria on foreclosures.  And none of Obama's savvy businessmen/banker friends ever bent his ear on this subject...

    Yeah, that just sounds so plausible...sure, that's the ticket...

    But, hey  - maybe he is completely out of the loop; I mean, shouldn't someone in the administration know how a pocket veto works? - which is what it is being reported that Obama plans to do.  [pssst! Congress IS in session]

    I don't know why, but for some reason I'm thinking that the "concern" being expressed about the bill is more, "damn! they found out!" than anything else.

    Add me to the list of those who (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:16:44 PM EST
    relied too soon on the WSJ's reporting...

    But I could live without the BS from the president about the good intentions of the bill's authors; please, we know this wasnt' about easing interstate commerce, it was about protecting the interests of the banks - once again.

    And I don't for one minute think Obama wasn't fully aware of this bill's progress through the Congress.


    Anne speaks for me (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:28:18 PM EST
    This whole charade was great theater too, what a bunch of phuckers.  My husband says every incumbent needs to go home and be unemployed, I tell him he is acting dysfunctional when he gets all riled up and wants all incumbents removed....but is he?  In light of this, I am the fool.....not him.

    Good Work BTD! (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    At least they are considering....  hope your efforts prove  successful

    Nothing Surprises Me Anymore (none / 0) (#5)
    by bselznick on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    Absolutely nothing surprises me anymore.  The Democrats long ago passed on doing anything good for the people.  

    I can just see the GOP ads now, "And they'll even take your home..."

    Here's the deal, the Dems work to position themselves one degree left of the GOP.  Meanwhile the GOP is being driven further and further right by the Tea Party.  See how that works.  Even picking the lesser of two evils is getting harder every day.  

    WSJ (none / 0) (#6)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:46:19 PM EST
    says a veto is confirmed

    The article says it will be a pocket veto (none / 0) (#8)
    by BTAL on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:49:43 PM EST
    which since Congress hasn't adjorned, it will automatically become law.

    what? (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:54:24 PM EST
    that sure is contrary to just about every news headline on the matter.

    Exact quote (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:56:12 PM EST
    Mr. Obama hasn't yet issued a veto during his presidency. In this instance, he will send the bill back to Congress using a process known as a "pocket veto."

    I read the article (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    I have a hard time believing every major news outlet in the country would be calling this a "veto" if it were going to become law.

    could be this (none / 0) (#15)
    by CST on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:02:24 PM EST
    congress adjourns.

    The Senate did not adjorn (none / 0) (#17)
    by BTAL on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    Senate blocks recess appointments with deal between Dems, GOP

    Not clear on how the House handled the matter and if both chambers have to be adjorned.


    Yep (none / 0) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:54:38 PM EST
    If true, it becomes law without Obama taking any responsibility for it. Surprise, surprise.

    Not true (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:55:18 PM EST
    He is sending it back. It's not a pocket veto.

    To be clear (none / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:58:13 PM EST
    are you saying that the WSJ's is not accurate?

    Yep (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:03:52 PM EST