Are you sure you want to delete this post?
I can appreciate that this is not an easy decision. As usual I look to Vox to provide a balanced view of the potential long term implications.
Vox, Septemebr 23, 2016: Why President Obama just vetoed a bill to let 9/11 victims' families sue Saudi Arabia
Now I am not a fan of Saudi Arabia. In fact I think we're on the wrong side of the Saudi - Iran conflict. So I am not driven by any emotional ties to Saudi. I want to do what's best for the United States in the long term, and that's why President Obama's veto needs to be upheld.
Quoting from a New York Times Op-ed by Duke law professor Curtis Bradley and Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith:
"If the United States reduces the immunity it accords to other nations, it exposes itself to an equivalent reduction in its own immunity abroad."
"A nation’s immunity from lawsuits in the courts of another nation is a fundamental tenet of international law," they wrote. "Were the sovereign immunity rule to weaken, the United States would be subject to many more lawsuits in foreign courts than any other nation and would become an attractive and high-profile target for politicized litigation designed to contest its foreign policy."
Read more on the pros and cons in the Vox link above, but essentially this is the fundamental argument.
We should also note that the Saudi government is not specifically mentioned in the bill. It opens the door for all countries to participate with their own lawsuits. The 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) has served us well for 40 years, and just because of some election year "feel good" politics, we should not undermine it.
Politicians in this election year are pandering for votes now. Their actions and accountability will soon be forgotten in the years to come as other nations line up to sue the USA if the veto is overridden.