White House Veto Threat Of Keystone Sign Of Republican Obstructionism. Wha??

(CNS) At the White House press briefing Tuesday, Press Secretary Josh Earnest announced that President Obama would not sign a bipartisan bill authorizing the construction of the Keystone-XL Pipeline.

Earnest was then asked whether President Obama’s first veto threat “raises questions” about his unwillingness to work with the new Republican controlled Congress.

Earnest answered citing the administration’s “long held view” opposing Keystone:

“I guess, based on the construction of your question, maybe it raises questions about the willingness of Republicans to actually cooperate with this administration, when you consider the very first bill that’s introduced in the United States Senate is one the Republicans know the president opposes.”​

First of all, let’s clear up a couple of points. The Keystone Pipeline bill was supported by a bipartisan group of 59 senators in a vote in November 2014. This was not a purely partisan effort.

Furthermore, as the White House was announcing their first veto, the 114th Congress had just been gaveled into session. Even before the new Congress had even been sworn in, the White House had rejected a key agenda item.

In the face of their antagonism, the White House still attempted to claim this rejection of a bipartisan piece of legislation was an example of Republican obstructionism. This assertion followed President Obama’s executive action on immigration late last year, which bypassed Congress altogether.

It is quite the logical leap for the White House to claim that President Obama’s repeated actions ignoring, bypassing, and confronting Congress since the midterm elections show anything but openness or a willingness to compromise.
 
g06JBDx.jpg
 
Pesky landowners. I'd redistribute their holdings and tell TransCan, "come on through!"
Obama getting out of the way of this infrastructure bill which will create 42,000 union jobs for two years and doesn't cost the US taxpayer anything doesn't negate the imminent domain laws locally. If I had my way, that pipeline would look like a jerrymandered voting district in Texas and be forced to build around anyone who didn't want to give up their land.
 
Obama getting out of the way of this infrastructure bill which will create 42,000 union jobs for two years and doesn't cost the US taxpayer anything doesn't negate the imminent domain laws locally. If I had my way, that pipeline would look like a jerrymandered voting district in Texas and be forced to build around anyone who didn't want to give up their land.
So you'd respect property rights even at significant cost to efficiency of the pipeline?
 
Pipes leak.

We cannot burn all the fossil fuels like we have been doing. If we do we commit this earth to catastrophe. So for now we can't. Some must be left in the ground until/if carbon capture is viable. The tar sands are a good one to leave in the ground.
 
So you'd respect property rights even at significant cost to efficiency of the pipeline?
imminent domain is for public works not private, and KXL is clearly private, the courts in Nebraska are totally screwed up and this should go all the way to the supreme court. No one should lose even one square foot to TransCanada unless they voluntarily want to sell, or better yet lease. But that said, there is no reason for Obama to block it, it's none of his business.
 
imminent domain is for public works not private, and KXL is clearly private, the courts in Nebraska are totally screwed up and this should go all the way to the supreme court. No one should lose even one square foot to TransCanada unless they voluntarily want to sell, or better yet lease. But that said, there is no reason for Obama to block it, it's none of his business.
Actually, Obama is threatening to block it because it's none of his business. Or at least so he says.
 
Back
Top