Friday, January 30, 2009

So Much for Keeping Promises

According the Barack Obama's campaign website, he promised not to speed through any legislation.

Here is the quote from the website:
"Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign ANY non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for FIVE days."
However, he recently signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act without ever having posted it on the White House website, 2 days after the Act passed the House.

Basically this bill overturns a Supreme Court decision stating that said workers could not sue for pay discrimination.  First of all, if the Supreme Court has decided on something, does that not make it a done issue?  Can even the President overturn something the Supreme Court does? Perhaps I am a little rusty on my 3 branches of government but doesn't the Supreme Court basically say what is and is not constitutional or not? If the Supreme Court says a law is okay, can someone else come along and tell them that it is not? Maybe I am wrong but I don't think I am. I think when it comes to laws, the Court is pretty much the final say on whether it is constitutional or not....unless the Court itself overturns its own decision.

Looking at it another way, okay the bill itself has been around for a while and it was posted on Obama's website during his campaign.  So maybe I am being nit picky but he did promise no laws will be signed unless the public has had a chance to read it first on the White House webiste, unless it is an emergency.  To me, this bill does not seem like an emergency and I know that people have to have had a chance to read the bill itself while it was still being tossed around in the House but the fact is that it was never posted to the White House website and a promise is a promise.

So like the title says...so much for keeping promises. So much for him being a "different type" of politician. 

5 comments:

  1. A couple of points-- the bill has been around a while, including during campaigning last year. Both candidates had been asked about it, and McCain replied that he wouldn't vote for it (and didn't even show up for the vote) because women simply needed more education. Obama showed up for the vote and voted yes (last year).

    The Bill is not really new either-- it is a modification of the previously passed bill that the Court interpreted to mean that you could only sue for the back pay from a short period beginning at the point you found out you were being discriminated against. The new Bill makes it so one could get back pay from the point at which the discrimination began occurring, not the 120 days (IIRC)from the point you found out you were being discriminated against.

    In the Fair case, the court determined that she was not able to receive the back pay due to the timing of finding out versus discrimination-- not that the legislation was unconstitutional.

    ReplyDelete
  2. say what?
    Obama actually showed up for a vote when he was in the Senate?

    Are you sure he didn't just vote "present"... ?

    And as far as rushing to legislation while cherrypicking facts and playing on the fears of Americans to push through your agenda... Obama has Bushie beat by a mile.
    This so-called "stimulus" bill is perhaps the biggest government hoax ever perpetrated and he's trying to ram it through in his first week in office... lol

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's okay Otter, some of us saw it coming 100 miles away.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree. As I have stated many times, I did not and still do not (even more so now) trust the guy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ... guess this means the honeymoon's over.

    (just kidding otter)

    ReplyDelete