Pandering Politicians Protecting Their Populairty

"PANDERING" is a term used to describe the behavior of politicians who seek to please voters by supporting legislation intended primarily to enhance the popularity of the politician. Like, telling people what they want to hear, whether or not they need to hear it for any discernibly beneficial reason. We all do it, and for those who haven't, it might be worth a try. Amid the passion associated with the fifteenth anniversary of nine eleven, a pandering American congress passed a bill allowing american victims of the attack to file lawsuits in american courts against the Saudi Arabian government for the recovery of damages, presumably both punitive and compensatory. Recognizing the bill for what it is, nonsense, he vetoed it. It now appears likely that his veto will be overridden by a bipartisan parade of pandering politicians. Suppose, for example, that an American who lost a family member in the destruction of the World Trade Center files a lawsuit against the Saudi government in an American court of law. How likely is it that the defendant would rush across the Atlantic a team of crack lawyers to defend themselves against the allegations? How likely is it that they would even care, or notice the litigation? further suppose that a guilty verdict is rendered. how likely is it that the Saudis would rush to their local bank, withdraw funds, and present the awarded damaged to the victorious plaintiff with all haste? The fact that nearly all the nine eleven attacker were Saudi nationals does not implicate the Saudi government, as everyone knows. If officials within the Saudi government did indeed plan, assist, or directly execute the attack, we'll never know about it, much less prove it in any American court room, and exact a penalty. everyone clearly understands this, or if not, should. Obama has pointed out that american government officials and corporate operatives engage in business activity all over the world, in every country, and that therefore that United states is much more exposed to this sort of litigation from other countries than any other country is exposed to American justice. He quite rightly concludes that any indictment against any member of any foreign government handed down in the United states could very easily be net with reciprocal legal action of all kinds anywhere in the world, and that thus our new law does nothing but open a Pandora's box of potential diplomatic retaliation and antagonism. the problem with this rather obvious and reasonable argument is that, as one might imagine, pandering politicians are quite beyond the realm of reason.........PLEASE SHARE THIS WEBSITE WITH OTHER TO ENCOURAGE FREE EXPRESSION.THANKS!