More than enough votes to override the veto in both the house and senate. Can't wait until victims of drone strikes start suing the U.S. In their courts.
We can see from the recent Laos thread how many Americans wouldn't be happy with being on the receiving end of such a lawsuit. Dumb law.
remind me how much money the US Government is spending to clean that shit up?
As expected the Senate voted to override the veto.More than enough votes to override the veto in both the house and senate. Can't wait until victims of drone strikes start suing the U.S. In their courts.
So I havent followed this thing. Does this bill allow foreign citizens to sue us or is it just the 9/11 peeps suing saude only?
Is Harry Reid the only Democrat in the Senate?
I wasn't replying to anyone specifically. Just noting that Harry Reid was the only nay vote in the Senate. If my sources are correct, no one debated the bill this time around. Support is bipartisan.Are you replying to me? I believe Schumar or whatever-his-name from NY is also a big supporter, and there were many others....or is Reid rejecting this bill? I don't know.
It is bills like this which allow voters to clearly define what kind of version votes for what is right and smart for the country, vs what is pure pandering for votes. Yes, I understand that the job of a congresscritter is to support their constituents, but there are also situations where your vote is meant to serve the country (and your constituents) above their rather poor judgement at time.
This is a sympathy trap sort of bill that really should never have been considered. It's easy to want to find a way to nail the Saudis for 9/11--I get that, I'd love for that to happen--but this bill is beyond stupid. It is incredibly dangerous. You have to be the bigger person as a congresscritter and understand that supporting this type of bill is anathema to the job you signed up for.
No one really debated it the first time either. It seems like bipartisan support only so that people won't have ads run against them: "So and so failed to support 9/11 families..."I wasn't replying to anyone specifically. Just noting that Harry Reid was the only nay vote in the Senate. If my sources are correct, no one debated the bill this time around. Support is bipartisan.
http://nyti.ms/2cVX6aT“I do want to say I don’t think the Senate nor House has functioned in an appropriate manner as it relates to a very important piece of legislation,” said Mr. Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who presumably could have played a role in the hearings and debate he said went lacking. “I have tremendous concerns about the sovereign immunity procedures that would be set in place by the countries as a result of this vote,” which he then cast.
There's a few here.Which guy wants to go back and campaign saying he voted against the families of 9-11 victims? Pure political vote.
I wasn't replying to anyone specifically. Just noting that Harry Reid was the only nay vote in the Senate. If my sources are correct, no one debated the bill this time around. Support is bipartisan.
Right, just saying those are people that could definitely be considered to have voted against the families of 9/11.totally different bills, though
Yeah. One required Congress to allocate money instead of just grandstanding. They have no problem "supporting" people, as long as they don't have to appropriate money as well.totally different bills, though
ya true.Right, just saying those are people that could definitely be considered to have voted against the families of 9/11.