Last week from President Obama:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 23, 2016

Veto Message from the President — S.2040

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

I am returning herewith without my approval S. 2040, the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA), which would, among other things, remove sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated state sponsors of terrorism.

I have deep sympathy for the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), who have suffered grievously. I also have a deep appreciation of these families’ desire to pursue justice and am strongly committed to assisting them in their efforts.

Consistent with this commitment, over the past 8 years, I have directed my Administration to pursue relentlessly al Qa’ida, the terrorist group that planned the 9/11 attacks. The heroic efforts of our military and counterterrorism professionals have decimated al-Qa’ida’s leadership and killed Osama bin Laden. My Administration also strongly supported, and I signed into law, legislation which ensured that those who bravely responded on that terrible day and other survivors of the attacks will be able to receive treatment for any injuries resulting from the attacks. And my Administration also directed the Intelligence Community to perform a declassification review of “Part Four of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11,” so that the families of 9/11 victims and broader public can better understand the information investigators gathered following that dark day of our history.

Notwithstanding these significant efforts, I recognize that there is nothing that could ever erase the grief the 9/11 families have endured. My Administration therefore remains resolute in its commitment to assist these families in their pursuit of justice and do whatever we can to prevent another attack in the United States. Enacting JASTA into law, however, would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks. As drafted, JASTA would allow private litigation against foreign governments in U.S. courts based on allegations that such foreign governments’ actions abroad made them responsible for terrorism-related injuries on U.S. soil. This legislation would permit litigation against countries that have neither been designated by the executive branch as state sponsors of terrorism nor taken direct actions in the United States to carry out an attack here. The JASTA would be detrimental to U.S. national interests more broadly, which is why I am returning it without my approval.

First, JASTA threatens to reduce the effectiveness of our response to indications that a foreign government has taken steps outside our borders to provide support for terrorism, by taking such matters out of the hands of national security and foreign policy professionals and placing them in the hands of private litigants and courts.

Any indication that a foreign government played a role in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is a matter of deep concern and merits a forceful, unified Federal Government response that considers the wide range of important and effective tools available. One of these tools is designating the foreign government in question as a state sponsor of terrorism, which carries with it a litany of repercussions, including the foreign government being stripped of its sovereign immunity before U.S. courts in certain terrorism-related cases and subjected to a range of sanctions. Given these serious consequences, state sponsor of terrorism designations are made only after national security, foreign policy, and intelligence professionals carefully review all available information to determine whether a country meets the criteria that the Congress established.

In contrast, JASTA departs from longstanding standards and practice under our Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and threatens to strip all foreign governments of immunity from judicial process in the United States based solely upon allegations by private litigants that a foreign government’s overseas conduct had some role or connection to a group or person that carried out a terrorist attack inside the United States. This would invite consequential decisions to be made based upon incomplete information and risk having different courts reaching different conclusions about the culpability of individual foreign governments and their role in terrorist activities directed against the United States — which is neither an effective nor a coordinated way for us to respond to indications that a foreign government might have been behind a terrorist attack.

Second, JASTA would upset longstanding international principles regarding sovereign immunity, putting in place rules that, if applied globally, could have serious implications for U.S. national interests. The United States has a larger international presence, by far, than any other country, and sovereign immunity principles protect our Nation and its Armed Forces, officials, and assistance professionals, from foreign court proceedings. These principles also protect U.S. Government assets from attempted seizure by private litigants abroad. Removing sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated as state sponsors of terrorism, based solely on allegations that such foreign governments’ actions abroad had a connection to terrorism-related injuries on U.S. soil, threatens to undermine these longstanding principles that protect the United States, our forces, and our personnel.

Indeed, reciprocity plays a substantial role in foreign relations, and numerous other countries already have laws that allow for the adjustment of a foreign state’s immunities based on the treatment their governments receive in the courts of the other state. Enactment of JASTA could encourage foreign governments to act reciprocally and allow their domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials — including our men and women in uniform — for allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support to third parties. This could lead to suits against the United States or U.S. officials for actions taken by members of an armed group that received U.S. assistance, misuse of U.S. military equipment by foreign forces, or abuses committed by police units that received U.S. training, even if the allegations at issue ultimately would be without merit. And if any of these litigants were to win judgments — based on foreign domestic laws as applied by foreign courts — they would begin to look to the assets of the U.S. Government held abroad to satisfy those judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for the United States.

Third, JASTA threatens to create complications in our relationships with even our closest partners. If JASTA were enacted, courts could potentially consider even minimal allegations accusing U.S. allies or partners of complicity in a particular terrorist attack in the United States to be sufficient to open the door to litigation and wide-ranging discovery against a foreign country — for example, the country where an individual who later committed a terrorist act traveled from or became radicalized. A number of our allies and partners have already contacted us with serious concerns about the bill. By exposing these allies and partners to this sort of litigation in U.S. courts, JASTA threatens to limit their cooperation on key national security issues, including counterterrorism initiatives, at a crucial time when we are trying to build coalitions, not create divisions.

The 9/11 attacks were the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil, and they were met with an unprecedented U.S. Government response. The United States has taken robust and wide-ranging actions to provide justice for the victims of the 9/11 attacks and keep Americans safe, from providing financial compensation for victims and their families to conducting worldwide counterterrorism programs to bringing criminal charges against culpable individuals. I have continued and expanded upon these efforts, both to help victims of terrorism gain justice for the loss and suffering of their loved ones and to protect the United States from future attacks. The JASTA, however, does not contribute to these goals, does not enhance the safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, and undermines core U.S. interests.

For these reasons, I must veto the bill.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 23, 2016.

[emphasis added]

Both houses of Congress overrode the President’s veto.

In the U.S. Senate:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 114th Congress – 2nd Session
Question: On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Bill S. 2040 Pass, the Objections of the President of the United States to the Contrary Notwithstanding? )
Vote Number: 148
Vote Date: September 28, 2016, 12:02 PM
Required For Majority: 2/3
Vote Result: Veto Overridden
Measure Number: S. 2040 (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act )
Measure Title: A bill to deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts:YEAs 97 NAYs 1 Not Voting 2
[….]
Missouri:
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

[emphasis added]

In the U.S. House:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 564
S 2040      2/3 YEA-AND-NAY      28-Sep-2016      3:01 PM
QUESTION:  On Passage, The Objections of the President to the Contrary Notwithstanding
BILL TITLE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act

—- YEAS    348 —
Cleaver
Graves (MO)
Long
Luetkemeyer
Smith (MO)
Wagner

—- NAYS    77 —
Clay
Hartzler

Strange company.

Then the republican Senate Majority Leader suddenly discovered:

White House Slams Congress for ‘Buyer’s Remorse’ Over 9/11 Bill
By Ali Rogin and Arlette Saenz
Sep 29, 2016, 6:46 PM ET

….Earlier Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blamed the White House for not doing enough to express its own concerns about the legislation to Congress.

“That was a good example, it seems to me, of failure to communicate early about the potential consequences of a piece of legislation that was obviously very popular,” he said. “I told the president that this was an example of an issue we should have talked about much earlier.”

But he also acknowledged that, in their zeal to support the families of 9/11 victims, lawmakers themselves did not fully consider the potential consequences of passing a bill that might leave the U.S. open to similar litigation.

“By the time everybody seemed to focus on the potential consequences of it, members had basically already taken a position,” he said. “Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were but no one had really focused on the potential downsides in terms of our international relationship.”

Earnest had a different characterization for what happened.

“The suggestion on this part of some members of the Senate is that they didn’t know what they were voting for. They didn’t understand the negative consequences of the bill. That’s a hard suggestion to take seriously,” Earnest said….

[emphasis added]

Failure to communicate? Uh, next time read the veto message.

Ladies and gentlemen, your republican run U.S. Congress.

Uh, yeah.

Today from Attorney General Chris Koster (D) via Twitter:

Chris Koster ‏@Koster4Missouri

MO motto: “The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.” #RTW harms families. Thank @GovJayNixon for his veto [….] 9:45 AM – 5 Jun 2015

Right to get paid less isn’t a good thing for working people.

Previously:

HB 116 & 569: great moments in legislative prognostication (February 11, 2015)

Not so smart ALECs (May 12, 2015)

A reminder (May 12, 2015)

Gov. Jay Nixon: your General Assembly in action (May 17, 2015)

Right to get paid less and have fewer benefits (June 2, 2015)

Gov. Jay Nixon: Veto of HB 116 & 569 – Right to Get Paid Less (June 4, 2015)

Reason enough (June 4, 2015)

“…The “right to work” moniker is a misnomer. Right to work laws create a less skilled workforce, drive down wages and directly interfere with a business owner’s right to contract…”

Governor Jay Nixon [June 2014 file photo].

Governor Jay Nixon vetoed anti-labor HB 116 & 569 today. His veto message:

GOVERNOR OF MISSOURI

JEFFERSON CITY

65102

June 4, 2015

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Herewith I return to you Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill Nos. 116 & 569 entitled:

AN ACT:

To amend chapter 290, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to labor organizations, with penalty provisions.

I disapprove of Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill Nos. 116 & 569. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill Nos. 116 & 569 (House Bill No. 1 l6) is a so-called “right to work” law that would prohibit employers from requiring the payment of “any dues, fees, assessments, or other similar charges however denominated of any kind or amount to a labor organization” as a condition of employment or continued employment. It would also prohibit employers from conditioning employment or continued employment on an employee or applicant becoming or “refrain[ing] from becoming a member of a labor organization.”

The “right to work” moniker is a misnomer. Right to work laws create a less skilled workforce, drive down wages and directly interfere with a business owner’s right to contract. House Bill No. 116 takes this ill-advised policy one step further by also subjecting employers and others to state criminal prosecution and unlimited civil liability. House Bill No. 116 is wrong for workers, wrong for business owners and wrong for Missouri.

There are three specific reasons for my veto:

I. House Bill No. 116 Is Bad for Our Economy

House Bill No. 116 is misguided legislation designed to undermine labor organizations that produce highly skilled workers for Missouri employers. This attack on working Missourians would stunt economic growth by reducing workforce training opportunities and driving down wages. For generations, the right to collectively bargain has yielded benefits for all workers. Labor organizations, through training, apprenticeships and other programs – paid for by their members – play a valuable role by providing the skilled workers that businesses need to compete in the global economy. House Bill No. 116 would curb the ability of labor organizations to make these critical investments. Here in Missouri we have seen the benefits of a skilled workforce, where large employers with organized workers have added thousands of jobs and made massive capital investments. Talented, union-trained workers are a key asset in attracting such investments and creating good paying jobs. House Bill No. 116 would thwart this momentum by reducing training resources which will, in turn, result in fewer skilled workers for our businesses and create a more difficult environment for employers and labor organizations to expand our economy.

House Bill No. 116 would also drive down wages for all workers, regardless of whether such workers are members of a labor organization. On average, workers in so-called “right to work” states make considerably less per year than workers in non-right to work states. Paying workers less, whether members of labor organizations or not, and giving them fewer opportunities to learn the skills necessary to succeed, will not move our state forward.

II. House Bill No. 116 Constitutes Unwarranted Governmental Interference Into the Operations of Missouri Businesses

House Bill No. 116 constitutes unwarranted governmental interference into Missouri businesses. Currently, the only way that union membership or dues payment are required as a condition of employment is if an employer agrees to that condition. Absent the employer’s agreement, there can be no such condition. Accordingly, at its core, a so-called “right to work” law is a government-mandated prohibition directed against an employer’s right to contract. Through this governmental interference, House Bill No. 116 would take away the rights of an employer to decide for itself how to run its business. This attack on the freedom and autonomy of Missouri employers cannot become the law of this state.

III. House Bill No. 116 Exposes Businesses to Criminal Prosecution and Unlimited Civil Liability

House Bill No. 116 would subject employers to state criminal prosecution and unlimited civil liability for using labor organization membership as a condition of employment. These penalty provisions were added in a Senate committee after the bill had initially passed the House. Not only would this new crime and new liability ensnare businesses that desire to require their employees be union members, it would also authorize sanctions against businesses that attempt to condition employment on an employee “refraining” from becoming a member of a labor organization.

House Bill No. 116 would create a broad new crime, a class C misdemeanor, for any person who “directly or indirectly violates” the provisions of the bill. It would give each of the 115 local prosecuting attorneys and the attorney general sweeping authority to launch investigations into complaints of “violation or threatened violation” of its provisions, and to use “all means at their command” to enforce compliance. It is not infrequent during labor organizing campaigns, for example, for disputes to arise over an employer’s hiring and firing decisions, i.e., conditions or continuation of employment, allegedly made on the basis of support for the labor organization. Under the terms of House Bill No. 116, such allegations could expose an employer to criminal prosecution. The bill would also criminalize a bargained for agreement that includes a union security clause that an employer is now free to make under current law.

On the civil side, House Bill No. 116 would expose business owners to lawsuits seeking “any and all damages of any character” that result from a “violation” or “threatened violation” of its provisions. This government overreach, enforced with the threat of criminal prosecution and civil damages, would inject new uncertainty into the operations of Missouri businesses without any positive impact on our economy.

IV. Conclusion

Missouri’s greatest assets are its highly skilled, well-trained workers. These Missourians produce goods and services that are consumed around the world. Their efforts and talents allow our companies to expand while also attracting new businesses to locate or move to the Show Me State. They are our relatives and our neighbors. They are the backbone of our economy.

House Bill No. 116 would represent a significant step backwards for Missouri. It would reduce wages, limit training opportunities, undermine business owners’ autonomy, and expose employers and others to the threat of state criminal prosecution and unlimited civil liability. This is not a path Missouri should follow. I stand with the workers of Missouri and reject this wrongheaded legislation that will hurt our economy, our families and our businesses.

In accordance with the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill Nos. 116 & 569 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted

s/

Jeremiah W. Jay Nixon

Governor

Some of the reactions via Twitter:

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

If Missouri Republicans really believe #RTW is a winner with voters (not donors), they should put it on the ballot in 2016. 12:04 PM – 4 Jun 2015

And a couple of pointed reactions to that reaction:

Matt LaCasse ‏@MattLaCasse

.@tonymess That sounds dangerously like actual democracy, though… 12:05 PM – 4 Jun 2015

Mid-MO Royals Fan ‏@MidMORoyalsFan

@tonymess It would fail miserably and they know it. 12:07 PM – 4 Jun 2015

Indeed it would.

Cathy Sherwin ‏@cathysherwin

Thanks @GovJayNixon for standing up for Missouri’s working families and all middle class w/veto of #RightToWork #righttoworkiswrong #moleg 12:00 PM – 4 Jun 2015

Previously:

HB 116 & 569: great moments in legislative prognostication (February 11, 2015)

Not so smart ALECs (May 12, 2015)

A reminder (May 12, 2015)

Gov. Jay Nixon: your General Assembly in action (May 17, 2015)

Right to get paid less and have fewer benefits (June 2, 2015)

A television commercial running this evening in the Kansas City media market:

Right to work. It has nothing to do with rights or work. It’s about greed. It’s about CEOs who make around three hundred and sixty times what the average worker makes getting more. And it’s about politicians overreaching to give big out of state corporations who fill their campaign coffers more power to cut wages and benefits. Right to work isn’t right and it doesn’t work. Call Governor Nixon. Thank him for protecting our workers and opposing so called right to work law.

[Call Governor Nixon

855-463-8386

Thank him for

opposing

right to work]

[MiddleclassMO.org

Paid for by Preserve Middle Class America]

Previously:

HB 116 & 569: great moments in legislative prognostication (February 11, 2015)

Not so smart ALECs (May 12, 2015)

A reminder (May 12, 2015)

“…Cooperating doesn’t mean compromising on your principles. And when the General Assembly passes legislation that would take our state backwards, like they did this past week, I won’t hesitate to use my veto pen to protect the interests of the people of Missouri.

I’ll lay out my objections in greater detail in my veto message, but it’s clear that attacking workers and threatening businesses is the wrong economic development strategy for our state and it’s not what Missourians sent us here to do…”

Governor Jay Nixon [June 2014 file photo].

From Governor Jay Nixon’s office:

Remarks by Gov. Nixon regarding the 98th General Assembly

May 15, 2015

Jefferson City, MO

Below are the prepared remarks given by Gov. Jay Nixon upon the adjournment of the 98th General Assembly:

Good afternoon and thanks for being here. I know many of you have had some long days this week so I’ll have just a few comments and then be glad to take any questions.

First I want to congratulate Representative Todd Richardson, a well-respected and talented legislator, on his election as Speaker of the Missouri House. I spoke to Todd last night and told him that I was committed to working with him next session to restore trust and move the state forward.

Earlier this year, at the beginning of session, I talked about the values we share as Missourians… and encouraged the General Assembly to rise above partisanship… and do the right thing by the working families of our state.

Because we’re all here for the same purpose: to represent the people of Missouri – folks who are working hard to make ends meet, provide for their families, and build a brighter future for their children.

And during this session, we were able to reach across aisle to get things done on a host of important issues:

   I’m eager to review the legislature’s bill to reform municipal courts – a top priority I called for in my State of the State address.

   We also took steps to strengthen our agriculture industry with a bill to help dairy farmers and encourage more young people to pursue careers in agriculture.

   Last week I signed legislation restoring caps on noneconomic damages against health providers – a reasonable, bipartisan solution to a long-standing and vexing challenge.

   The bonding package is another example of bipartisan progress. Everyone understands the critical role of higher education in maintaining our competitiveness in a global economy, and giving our students the skills they need for the jobs of the future.

   So last year, after the legislature passed additional bonding capacity, we reached out to legislators and higher education institutions around the state to chart a path forward.

   Our public colleges and universities identified their top priorities for bringing their higher education facilities up to the level our students deserve.  Six months later, that bill is on my desk – and it’s going to create thousands of good jobs in every corner of the state, while strengthening Missouri’s position as a leader in college affordability and quality.

   On the budget, again – there was more agreement than disagreement. From providing record funding for K-12 education, to investing in small businesses – the legislature passed the budget on time and answered my call for smart, strategic investments that will pay dividends for years to come.

   For example, the budget includes the spending authority needed for us to continue moving forward on a new Fulton State Hospital – replacing one that opened in 1851. I called for it… the legislature passed it… and in a couple weeks we’ll be breaking ground on that new state-of-the-art facility.

   I also want to thank the Senate for upholding my veto of a bill that would have unfairly denied working people the unemployment insurance benefits they’ve earned in the workplace.

But make no mistake, we don’t always agree.

Cooperating doesn’t mean compromising on your principles. And when the General Assembly passes legislation that would take our state backwards, like they did this past week, I won’t hesitate to use my veto pen to protect the interests of the people of Missouri.

The bill to make Missouri a so-called “Right-to-Work” state would stifle our economic growth, weaken the middle class – and even subject Missouri employers to criminal and unlimited civil liability.  

I’ll lay out my objections in greater detail in my veto message, but it’s clear that attacking workers and threatening businesses is the wrong economic development strategy for our state and it’s not what Missourians sent us here to do.

The legislature also left some major unfinished business that, for the good of our state, must be addressed when they return next year. That includes giving working people access to affordable health care, funding our roads and bridges, updating the state statute governing deadly force to be consistent with constitutional requirements and U. S. Supreme Court precedent, and finally reforming our ethics laws.

Now before I take questions, I want to talk briefly about the events of the past week.

The State Capitol should represent the best of Missouri….. a place where public servants carry out the people’s business transparently and ethically… and where young women and men can learn how their government works without fear of harassment, intimidation or other inappropriate conduct.

Now, there are many good people in this building, upstanding individuals who are here to serve the public interest.

But sadly, the past week has been a jarring reminder of what happens when people lose sight of what they’re here to do – and who they’re here to serve.

Now that the session has come to a close, members of the General Assembly face a choice – of whether the past few days will simply reinforce the low expectations many Missourians already have for the legislative process, or whether these events will serve as a wakeup call to do better and act in ways that will make Missourians proud.

That’s why I hope that, as they return to their districts this summer, members go home and get some perspective.  Spend time with their families… talk with their constituents… and recommit themselves to values that called them to public service and the people they’re here to represent.

Not lobbyists and special interests… but ordinary Missourians who work hard… go to church… and look out for their neighbors.

The autoworker on the line in Claycomo…The student working his way through school in Kirksville… The veteran starting her own business in St. Louis.

We’re here to deliver on their priorities: balanced budgets… good-paying jobs… quality schools… strong, inclusive communities…. and a government that reflects the highest ethical and moral standards.

Those are the priorities I’ve fought for as Governor over the last six years, and they’re the priorities I’ll continue to fight for in the months and years ahead.

Uh, yep, there will be a veto.

Governor Jay Nixon vetoed HB 150 today. The release:

Gov. Nixon vetoes bill that would hurt workers, weaken the economy

May 5, 2015

Causing further harm to workers who have been laid off by taking away insurance benefits they’ve earned will not grow our economy, Governor says

Gov. Jay Nixon today vetoed House Bill 150, which would have reduced the maximum duration of unemployment insurance benefits from 20 weeks to 13 weeks for Missourians who find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own. House Bill No. 150 would also reduce unemployment insurance benefits for those Missourians who upon losing their job receive some severance pay. The Governor’s veto of similar legislation last year was sustained.

“Unemployment insurance benefits provide a bridge for hardworking Missourians looking for another job, while strengthening local economies at the same time,” Gov. Nixon said. “Supporters of this bill have forgotten that workers earn these insurance benefits by working, and that tough economic times often last longer than a mere 13 weeks.”

The unemployment insurance system, jointly administered by the federal and state governments, serves as a bridge to future employment for those who are out of work due to circumstances beyond their control.  

Missouri’s average weekly unemployment insurance benefit of $243.63 ranks 43rd out of all 50 states. Missouri’s current cap of 20 weeks of assistance places Missouri among eight states that pay less than the national norm of 26 weeks, while only about one third of Missourians who apply for unemployment insurance benefits actually receive them.

“There is no sound fiscal argument for this bill. In fact, Missouri’s unemployment insurance trust fund remains, and is projected to remain, financially sound,” Gov. Nixon said. “Therefore, the changes sought by House Bill 150 are not needed, and their impact on both individuals and our economy are unfair and ill-advised.”

“The Missouri AFL-CIO applauds Governor Nixon on his veto of HB 150, a dangerous bill that would take away unemployment benefits at a time when they are most needed by Missouri’s working families,” said Mike Louis, President of the Missouri AFL-CIO. “At a time when running out of unemployment insurance could mean running out of clothing for a family, running out of money to make the car payment or house payment or not even being able to put food on the table is not a time when Missouri legislators should turn their backs.  Thank you, Governor Nixon, for standing for Missouri’s working families.”

“Taking away the insurance benefits Missouri workers have earned in the workforce is just wrong,” said Jeff Aboussie, executive secretary-treasurer at the St. Louis Building and Construction Trades Council. “Pulling the rug out from working people is no way to strengthen our economy. The men and women of the St. Louis building and construction trades are proud to stand with Governor Nixon in opposing this legislation.”

“This bill is bad for workers and it’s bad for our economy,” said UAW Region 5 Director Gary Jones. “On behalf of autoworkers across Missouri, I thank Governor Nixon for once again standing up for the hardworking men and women of our state and vetoing this harmful and unnecessary bill.”

[….]

[emphasis in original]

Yes, they still are.

Previously:

Gov. Jay Nixon’s Veto of SB 24: “Mean People Suck” (April 30, 2015)

SB 24: luckily, Jonathan Swift proposed a modest solution (May 5, 2015)

Previously:

Gov. Jay Nixon’s Veto of SB 24: “Mean People Suck” (April 30, 2015)

Via Twitter:

Jason Hancock ‏@J_Hancock

Following the Senate vote last night, House just voted 113-42 to override @GovJayNixon veto of welfare bill #moleg 12:05 PM – 5 May 2015

House Communications ‏@MOHOUSECOMM

By a vote of 113-42, #MOHouse approves motion to override veto of SB 24 (Nonmedical Public Assistance). 12:05 PM – 5 May 2015

VirginiaYoung ‏@VirginiaYoung

House has enacted the bill over governor’s veto. Vote was 113-42 — more than the 109 needed and the 111 bill got last time in House. #moleg 12:06 PM – 5 May 2015

Sarcasm:

Jeremy LaFaver ‏@jeremylafaver

Everybody knows that the best way to strengthen families is to take food away from them. #MOLeg logic. 12:03 PM – 5 May 2015

Jeremy LaFaver ‏@jeremylafaver

A hungry family is a strong family. #MOLeg #sb24 12:09 PM – 5 May 2015

Missouri House Dems ‏@MOLegDems

With override of SB 24, Republicans in #moleg cost the state $400K while taking away food assistance from 6,000 needy kids. Terrible idea. 12:15 PM – 5 May 2015

During the debate:

VirginiaYoung ‏@VirginiaYoung

House speaker @johndiehljr scolded @jeremylafaver for yelling out on floor w/o recognition: “We don’t act like barbarians.” #moleg 11:41 AM – 5 May 2015

A response:

Gina Mitten @gcmitts

Except when cutting benefits to MO’s poor kids….  11:44 AM – 5 May 2015

God and the republican controlled Missouri General Assembly must really love poor and hungry children, they’re making so many of them.