I think it can very reasonably be read differently. If you contrast this one with other veto messages from this cycle, he seems to consistently articulate where the 'bill is premature' or would cause technical issues were it to be signed or let go into law. Some of these are his chastising the author, some are more fatherly 'when it's not important to decide, it's important to not decide' [and preclude other avenues or hamper other ongoing efforts].
-Brandon
-Brandon





I hope that's just a baseless rumor.
Comment