It says in the article because she was sure that it would be challenged successfully in court in its current form.
Now, I, nor likely you, know her actual feelings. Whether she was lobbied, pressured, or genuinely had legal concerns. The only thing we do know is it was eventually signed into law.
It says in the article because she was sure that it would be challenged successfully in court in its current form.
That's funny, because I do recall that last year she said that it was because the NCAA would cut out South Dakota. And because of Chamber of Commerce lobbyists.
Now, I, nor likely you, know her actual feelings. Whether she was lobbied, pressured, or genuinely had legal concerns.
She's a politician.
The only thing we do know is it was eventually signed into law.
It's an actual issue. Do not discount the good for ideals of the perfect.
It is, but she vetoed a similar bill last year because she was pressured by the NCAA and lobbied by the Chamber of Commerce.
It's good that she is bending with the wind, but do not for a moment think that she has any principles or scruples.
It says in the article because she was sure that it would be challenged successfully in court in its current form.
Now, I, nor likely you, know her actual feelings. Whether she was lobbied, pressured, or genuinely had legal concerns. The only thing we do know is it was eventually signed into law.
That's funny, because I do recall that last year she said that it was because the NCAA would cut out South Dakota. And because of Chamber of Commerce lobbyists.
She's a politician.
Not quite, executive order.