LeftyAndProud60
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 05:09 PM
Original message |
Can Republicans repeal a bill without Obama's signature? |
|
I hear them saying they'll run to repeal HCR. Good luck running to tell sick people w/ a pre existing condition that they'll be taking their insurance away.
|
hlthe2b
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 05:13 PM
Response to Original message |
1. No.. they'd have to get a bill passed that repeals. then override Obama's |
|
Edited on Fri Mar-12-10 05:13 PM by hlthe2b
veto (assuming that to be the case). Not easy to do under any circumstance, or our laws and legislative process would be even more haphazard than they already are.
|
denimgirly
(929 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. Yea if i recall to ovrride a veto requires 2/3 of both houses of Congress? |
hlthe2b
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
Arkana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
7. Even if they get a majority they won't get close to the required number |
|
needed to overturn a Presidential veto.
|
damntexdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 05:17 PM
Response to Original message |
2. To pass a repeal they would need: |
|
1) a presidential signature; 2) a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto; or 3) the president to neither sign nor veto within ten working days, provided that Congress remains in session.
So, to repeal HCR, they would need a majority in both houses to vote to do so and a president to cooperate, or 2/3 of each house to vote to override a presidential veto.
In short, it ain't gonna happen.
|
Spazito
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 05:22 PM
Response to Original message |
3. They mean they will run in their election with the platform of working... |
|
toward repealing the bill if they are elected/re-elected.
|
Zen Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. Which means they'll be running on wasting their time! Obama would veto. |
|
And they couldn't override without 67 votes. And they WON'T get a majority this November anyway, so I guess running on wasting everyone's time is as good as anything they could run on.
|
Spazito
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Yep, they won't get a super-majority at all, it's doubtful they will... |
|
get enough seats to even become a bare majority, imo, and the reforms will have been in place for two years before they can try again. It is just more empty rhetoric to appeal to the rabid right, no surprise there.
|
Kber
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 05:23 PM
Response to Original message |
|
but they have to wait at least 7 years until Obama isn't President any more.
It ain't likely as noted in the above posts, but when have they ever let reality get in the way of their rhetoric?
|
Thothmes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
10. But if the get a one vote majority in the Senate |
|
That means when either Justice Stevens or Ginsburg retire, the Republican majority get the say on who Obama gets on the Supreme Court.
|
grantcart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 07:02 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The Republicans want the bill to pass
They will run against it and gain a few seats
They also will not have to come up with an alternative.
In the future they will own it like they did with Social Security and proclaim themselves as protectors and saviors.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 01:06 AM
Response to Original message |