The old bipartisan Supreme Court said no to "line item veto"

[Bandit]

Will the new all GOP Extreme Court overrule that ruling? Bush* has yet to veto a single thing so why is he pushing for "line item veto". He gets every single thing he wants already.

[Burning Water]

1. You know, that

is a very good question. Why does he want it, if he hasn't used the power that he already has?

I'll bet we are not going to like the answer.

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. That is a simple one.

Any amendments allowed to be added on by Democrats in order to generate a perception of broad support (not like the Republicans need it, it's a good will-PR thing) can be struck down at whim by the president so the final version of the law is as fascist as they can get it.

[onenote]

3. well, for one thing, the majority that said no is still on the court

The decision striking down the line item veto (which came in a case brought during Bill Clinton's presidency) cut across the normal lines. It was 6-3 with Rehnquist, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter,Thomas, and Ginsburg voting against the line item veto and Scalia, Breyer, and O'Connor voting for. Even assuming that both Roberts and Alito would adopt Scalia's position rather than that of Rehnquist and Thomas, you still have a 5-4 decision against the line item veto.

onenote

[bmcatt]

4. Now you're going to try and bring up stare decisis

And, while everyone agrees that precedents are important, not all precedents need to be given equal weight... :sarcasm: :mad:

[htuttle]

5. That was before 9/11!

Everything is different now.

:sarcasm: