PBS: Congress Overrides Obama's Veto On Sept. 11 Lawsuit Bill

[TradeTheBeal!]

I'd like to sue Japan for BabyMetal.

 

 

[Predicto]

Still better than Bob Seger.  

[justice98]

1 hour ago, Predicto said:

 

I honestly don't understand this argument.  Can you explain in more detail?

I mean, I don't see how Obama is covering Obama's ass with this.   As far as I can see, he gains nothing politically or personally from vetoing this - he just thinks it is a bad law that is going to backfire on America.   

Not HIS behind, per se, but the government's.  

[twa]

2 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

Scotus appointment anyone?....

 

The rule says no vote....gotta obey the rule or anarchy

[Predicto]

23 minutes ago, justice98 said:

Not HIS behind, per se, but the government's.  

 

I still don't get it.  That's his job.   To protect the United States from the consequences of bad laws.  

Imagine if the American Government gets sued in a village court in Bumblestan, found liable for hundred trillion dollars in damages for imperialism.  To collect, the Bumblestan government has every American asset there seized.   So when we go to a world arbitration body and try to get our property back, what are the officials from Bumblestan going to say?   

They are going to say: "Fair is fair: if you can sue sovereign governments in your home courts, well so can we."

It's an awful law, and Mitch McConnell knows it - which is why he is trying to dump the blame back on Obama the very next day after he led the fight to override Obama's veto. 

[tshile]

I want to sue China for stink bugs 

They've ruined the country

[justice98]

1 hour ago, Predicto said:

 

I still don't get it.  That's his job.   To protect the United States from the consequences of bad laws.  

Imagine if the American Government gets sued in a village court in Bumblestan, found liable for hundred trillion dollars in damages for imperialism.  To collect, the Bumblestan government has every American asset there seized.   So when we go to a world arbitration body and try to get our property back, what are the officials from Bumblestan going to say?   

They are going to say: "Fair is fair: if you can sue sovereign governments in your home courts, well so can we."

It's an awful law, and Mitch McConnell knows it - which is why he is trying to dump the blame back on Obama the very next day after he led the fight to override Obama's veto. 

Calling a law bad because it doesn't allow you to continue to do questionable things is in itself questionable.

[nonniey]

21 hours ago, s0crates said:

 

In case I'm not the only one wondering what "sovereign immunity" means:

 

 

I imagine the courts now will rule against any suit because of this.

[Predicto]

15 minutes ago, justice98 said:

Calling a law bad because it doesn't allow you to continue to do questionable things is in itself questionable.

 

Ummm...  at this point I'm not sure if we are talking about the same law.  

 

12 minutes ago, nonniey said:

I imagine the courts now will rule against any suit because of this.

 

Sovereign immunity is not a constitutional rule, but a principle of common law and international comity.  

Congress can overrule that principle by statute so that our courts will accept such suits  - and it just did exactly that.

[dfitzo53]

21 minutes ago, justice98 said:

Calling a law bad because it doesn't allow you to continue to do questionable things is in itself questionable.

The law is opening up a can of worms in terms of allowing questionable things, not the other way around.

I'm with Predicto, I don't understand what you're trying to say.  Can you be specific?

[s0crates]

@Predicto Is it true that "sovereign immunity" means "the king can do no wrong"? I wouldn't want to defend that proposition. I get that allowing the king to be prosecuted may have harmful consequences, but I'm not entirely convinced those harmful consequences negate the right of people to petition the king for a redress of grievances.

Maybe this is really a question of whether you think the law is about protecting individual rights or promoting the general welfare. I cannot help but see it through that lens anyway, and I tend to find questions of the sort perplexing.

 

[Predicto]

15 minutes ago, s0crates said:

@Predicto Is it true that "sovereign immunity" means "the king can do no wrong"? I wouldn't want to defend that proposition. I get that allowing the king to be prosecuted may have harmful consequences, but I'm not entirely convinced those harmful consequences negate the right of people to petition the king for a redress of grievances.

Maybe this is really a question of whether you think the law is about protecting individual rights or promoting the general welfare. I cannot help but see it through that lens anyway, and I tend to find questions of the sort perplexing.

 

 

Look at it this way.   What Sovereign Immunity really means is not that Kings or States or Nations can do no wrong, but that Nations have to deal with each other on a Nation to Nation basis.  If you have a beef with an entire country's government, that beef needs to go through the President and the United States Department of State.   If you have a beef with a private individual or company that has done something in the USA, well then go ahead and sue their azz off in our courts.  

Can't you see why it's a really bad idea to, lets say,  let a rural judge or jury in Texas assess damages against the Nation of France, or try to order the Nation of France to do anything?  That has to be something between the Unites States as a whole and the Nation of France as a whole.  Otherwise France is going to do it right back to us.  It's going to be chaos and it is going to happen the most in the countries with the least honest court systems and governments.  

And its no better of an idea just because the target is the Saudi Arabian government, because we have just undercut rules that benefit all of us and all countries in the world.

This new bill has nothing to do with petitioning the government for redress of grievances or protecting individual rights or promoting the general welfare.  It's bad because it flouts hundreds of years of international agreement, and opens up the USA to retaliatory lawsuits and asset seizures.     

[twa]

maybe they would keep more assets here then. 

[DCSaints_fan]

1 hour ago, twa said:

maybe they would keep more assets here then. 

We have a global economy.  Shutting down international trade would be a really, really bad idea.

[twa]

29 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

We have a global economy.  Shutting down international trade would be a really, really bad idea.

 

you think that would prevent trade?....I don't

[MartinC]

7 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

I'd like to sue Japan for BabyMetal.

 

I whisper this but I actually quite like that specific song by them. I probably appear on some kind of register for admitting that ...

[s0crates]

@Predicto I'm trying to ask an interesting philosophical question, and as usual you're burying me in practical concerns. I guess I'll leave aside the question of what to do in situations where the right thing is at odds with the prudent thing.

Suppose I try it from another angle?

I get that this could be an international relations nightmare and goes against precedent, but I feel like I'm missing the rest of the story.

If the case against the law is so obvious, how did it pass the Senate 97-1? I hold them in low esteem myself, but even I wouldn't say 97% are that stupid. Surely they must have reasons other than it could cost them the election. Only 34 of them are up for reelection, and I imagine many more have relatively secure seats. And even if they all voted out of fear that it would cost them their seats, am I to also assume that such an overwhelming majority of voters from across the country are that stupid?

And isn't such a bipartisan act of this senate noteworthy? When was the last time they were practically unanimous about anything? What did the 9/11 families say to them? It must have been pretty compelling if it got these people to cooperate.

I'm aware you're the legal expert, and I honestly don't know the first thing about "sovereign immunity," the contents of this bill, or international law. I just have a feeling you're overstating your case. 

[twa]

I wanna hear him say slippery slope. 

[tshile]

8 hours ago, s0crates said:

If the case against the law is so obvious, how did it pass the Senate 97-1?

Because they don't want to be hit over the head with "You voted against 9/11 families"

The same reason our country named sweeping spy legislation: The Patriot Act

These same people you go on to say you don't believe are stupid, are now saying the Obama admin should have explained the repercussions better. THE LAW MAKERS VOTING ON A LAW ARE COMPLAINING NO ONE EXPLAINED THE LAW TO THEM, AND VOTED ANYWAYS. Is there any better definition of someone being stupid than making an important decision knowing you do not have all the information required to make an informed decision and having the ability to acquire said information at your disposal?

You're way overthinking this. You're allowing some appeal to the idea that because there was bipartisan support, it must be a good thing, to overrule what has been a sad and unfortunate, but easily observable, fact that our politicians are sub-par in all meaningful ways. We have years of bipartisan support being done for all the wrong reasons (Iraq War, Patriot Act, NDAA, SIPA/PIPA, see the latest ICANN nonsense) to back up the ideas that:

- Some of our political leaders are dumb and vote on issues they have no understanding of

- Many of our people are stupid, and politicians must get said stupid people to vote for them, so politicians that are otherwise intelligent people say/vote for/against stupid things to appeal to said stupid people, even when they know it's the wrong thing to do

- Even when the above two don't apply, our politicians have a history of grandstanding on issues especially when they foresee few/no consequences (even if they are incorrect) and will do any and everything to grandstand as often as possible

I'm not saying that supporting this bill is stupid in this case. This sort of thing is out of my wheel house. Predicto seems to think it's pretty stupid, and he seems to be a reasonable authority on said issues (so far as internet message boards go), so I'll absolutely defer to him.

I'm just pointing out that that his explanation for why it happened, despite it being so terrible, is absolutely plausible. It's actually more than that. We have evidence of similar things happening recently.

Our system is broken because our people are generally uninformed. It's not a stretch to see that this results in politicians doing stupid/uninformed things, and the sad part is there's more than one reason why any given politician might do that.

8 hours ago, s0crates said:

am I to also assume that such an overwhelming majority of voters from across the country are that stupid?

 

yes.

absolutely, yes.

 

[LD0506]

17 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

I'd like to sue Japan for BabyMetal.
<Babymetal vid>

Ok, I hold you responsible for posting that but I gotta give credit where credit's due, the backup Kami Band rocked it

[mcsluggo]

18 hours ago, tshile said:

I want to sue China for stink bugs 

They've ruined the country

 

if you are going to go there...the damned asian tiger mosquito 

[visionary]

 

[Larry]

9 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

So, something good might come of this?

[LadySkinsFan]

McConnell needs to retire to the porch rocker.  I think dementia has set in.  .

[Going Commando]

McConnell is useless.  When all is said and done, his greatest legacy as majority leader will be blocking the nomination process of a 63 year old moderate judge to the Supreme Court.  For no reason.  And in unprecedented fashion.  He worked his whole career to get to this position to achieve that.  LOL.

I used to think he was actually smart and might have a glimmer of a chance at reversing course and leading a productive opposition congress, but he's just as big an idiot and turd as almost every Republican leader the party has crapped out in the past thirty years.