• Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, he said he vetoed the caste discrimination one because it’s already covered by existing laws, so they don’t need a new one

    “We don’t need laws prohibiting discrimination against [minority]! They’re just whining about nothing because our existing laws cover them!”

    I must have missed that one among the 87 articles about each individual veto that have been posted in the last couple of days.

    A lot of unconvincing excuses to keep straight, huh?

    • frickineh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, yeah, if it’s already prohibited under an existing law, you generally don’t need another one. That’s how laws work, and people do a fair amount of work to remove outdated and duplicate laws because it makes everyone’s job harder when you have to weed through that.