An exercise in futility

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Congress overrides Obama's veto of 9/11 bill letting families sue Saudi Arabia

Good. It's one issue where I actually agree with Congress rather than the president. Although I'm not sure this bill would open anything resembling a Pandora box. I mean, it *could* trigger a wave of lawsuits, but on the other hand, international legal cases tend to be extremely... non-existent. And they don't have much weight. Not to mention that proving the Saudi government's involvement in 9-11 beyond any doubt is a far shot, to say the least. But the families of the victims could at least try. They've waited long enough. Whether the move would be effective, is another question. IMO it would've been much easier to just stop working with the Saudis entirely (not that this is going to happen either, anyway).

The point is, this looks bad for Obama. And possibly for his successor (hopefully Hillary). His sudden desire to ingratiate himself to the Saudis at the end of a term that was defined by almost-hostile relations with them. Besides, he knew his veto would be overridden, and still he went through with it. Not very helpful for his successor. He's practically putting her between a rock and a hard place, and providing ammo to Trump. I'm not seeing much of a win-win motive behind his action here.

Secret Muslim, anyone? ;-)

Comments

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Ha! It's been a while since I last saw that tag. :-)

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Until I see a bill that triggers a series of lawsuits against those responsible for the faked build-up to the Iraq War II, I'll remain skeptical about the good intentions of Congress and will continue to suspect partisan maneuvering.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Pretty much.

[paft.livejournal.com]

L Although I'm not sure this bill would open anything resembling a Pandora box. I mean, it *could* trigger a wave of lawsuits, but on the other hand, international legal cases tend to be extremely... non-existent. And they don't have much weight. Not to mention that proving the Saudi government's involvement in 9-11 beyond any doubt is a far shot, to say the least. But the families of the victims could at least try. They've waited long enough. Whether the move would be effective, is another question. IMO it would've been much easier to just stop working with the Saudis entirely (not that this is going to happen either, anyway).

So, the bill could open a "Pandora's box" (like lawsuits against the U.S. for things like the invasion of Iraq, not to mention our funding of terrorists and death squads in Central America, the overthrow of Allende, etc. etc.), and lawsuits like that are "nonexistent anyway" and proving Saudi involvement is next to impossible ---

You've just provided the very good reasons for the veto -- which had nothing to do with Obama being seized by a "sudden desire to ingratiate himself to the Saudis."

[oportet.livejournal.com]

This is a no-brainer for anyone needing votes to keep their job (Obama doesn't, Congress does). You don't need to read the bill, it doesn't even matter what the bill says beyond the name of it - if you vote against the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act - you're not getting re-elected - doesn't matter what party or state you're in - that's perfect commercial material for any opponent. Pretty smart move by whoever wrote the bill - I wonder why politicians don't cleverly name their bills more often than they do....

[paft.livejournal.com]

No, that kind of shallow approach to lawmaking has nothing "smart" about it.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Oops...I thought my comment went to the post - I think that's what happens when you choose 'update later' long enough...but anyway...

I didn't mean smart as in ethical - I meant smart as in effective.

[paft.livejournal.com]

But it'snot "effective lawmaking" either. It's not reallly lawmaking at all.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

The best (worst) part of all of this is that now that it's passed, lawmakers have "suddenly" realized what a terrible idea it was (and that bad consequences might result.)

So they're blaming Obama. Because somehow it's his fault that they all voted for a law that he vetoed, and then they voted for it again.

Mitch McConnell didn't actually join with 28 other Senators who sent a letter warning of the new law's consequences. Of course, all 28 of said Senators had actually voted FOR the law, so one wonders why, if they were so worried about its consequences, they would have voted for it - and then voted to override Obama's veto. They're like the idiots in Britain who voted for the Brexit, and then said, the next day: "Wait, we're leaving the EU? You mean votes actually mean something?"

The GOP in Congress can't let an opportunity to be partisan pass by, regardless of whether it makes legal, Constitutional, or even just logical sense.

---

So yeah, McConnell didn't sign that letter from the 28 Senators, but he still blamed Obama for the whole thing. To quote the esteemed tortoise:

"I hate to blame everything on [Obama], and I don’t [but] it would have been helpful had we had a discussion about this much earlier than last week."

McConnell forgets, of course, that the White House has been warning about the negative consequences of this law for far longer than just since "last week," and has been trying to have that "discussion" all along. Facts don't exist or matter on Planet Wingnuttia.

We are completely over the rainbow here. The GOP has gone from the "Party of No" to the "Party of Surrealism." Logic and facts no longer exist. History and context have no bearing on ones actions or words from one day to the next. Reality is what one decides it is, so long as it scores a partisan point.

The Republican Party: the post-modern party of tomorrow!

---

Anyway, "Lowering the Bar" (an excellent legal humor blog that everyone should be reading anyway) has a good write-up of the whole idiotic mess.

http://loweringthebar.net/2016/10/congress-blames-veto.html

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Sometimes it's just too funny, in a bleakly ironic way, to offer anything in the way of sensible analysis. But it does show just how far the GOP's hatred of the (nb politically moderate) first black POTUS is prepared to warp its collective judgement on everything.

For some of us it gives American politics a proper context, which those of us outside America often overlook.