[at-fates-hands]

Here you go. Happened in 2013 under Obama:

But on Monday, when the president signed a bill reversing big pieces of the law, the emailed announcement was one sentence long. There was no fanfare last week either, when the Senate and then the House passed the bill in largely empty chambers using a fast-track procedure known as unanimous consent.

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/17749...

[eganist]

Thanks, this is helpful.

It's exceptionally unlikely that I'll be able to spur meaningful change, but I'll try to have an update in December. (Posting for accountability)

[weaksauce]

why make it partisan by mentioning obama like he had anything to do with it as this was passed unanimously by both the senate and the house.

just like when someone says "bill clinton repealed glass stegal" no he signed it when it was passed through by veto proof margins with only 2 people dissenting in the senate... he just happened to be the president at the time.

[vxNsr]

Because he could veto it.

[weaksauce]

you understand vetos are something congress can override right?

[boomboomsubban]

Vetoing the bill would have at least made the passage more notable, and likely required there to have been more than thirty seconds of debate on the topic. Making them override a veto has some value.

[weaksauce]

again it's not a partisan issue... literally both parties are passing these bills almost unanimously. it's a class issue i'll give you but not a partisan one.

[vxNsr]

Vetoing sends a message and as others have said would at least force the media to talk about it.