Failed Democrat Pol Sues Critics Over Election Loss

When is this going to stop, really, Now you have to worry about what a career politicrat is going to do to you if you speak out against them...and maybe confer some change by your actions. What is this country doing to itself?!

Charging that its activities contributed to his defeat and thus to his "loss of livelihood," Driehaus is suing the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life candidates for Congress and which has been one of the leading and most effective organizations involved in the fight to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood.

How long until we see more opposed politicians yank on someones chain because their opinions got them kicked out of office, Or what if a ballsy enough politician sues the voters that didnt vote for him/her. This is tantamount to my kid throwing a fit in the store then me getting charged with child abuse because i didnt give her what she wanted (incidentally how far are we away from that possibili-doom anyway)

According to Driehaus, who was one of that group, what the Susan B. Anthony List said in its public communications amounted to a malicious lie that contributed to his defeat. Amazingly, rather than laugh the suit out of court U.S. District Court judge Timothy S. Black, an Obama appointee, is allowing it to go forward.

Here is the full article...Doc (Keifer Sutherland) "Jesus this country needs a hero"
www.usnews.com...

It's ridiculous... but in all honesty I'd like to see ALL the political 521 groups or whatever they are called go away. Their commercials are not only a waste of real money but make me want to claw my eyes out.

reply to post by jjkenobi

True enough, one of the problems with our government is all the continuous lobbying and mud fights... spend more time trying to line pockets and get pet projects running for kickbacks than any real legislation for the people...just bureaucracy out of control, who says we aren't fascist? Benito would be proud...

I know, it's terrible. Reminds me of what Dick Cheney did to that poor CIA agent because her husband spoke out against the war in Iraq.

Edt: In case you forgot it was Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.

Democrats used to only cry about lost elections, now they are suing?

Figures.

Originally posted by Carseller4
Democrats used to only cry about lost elections, now they are suing?

Figures.

Seriously! Do something constructive, run a campaign on half shod science, or write a book, hell be real adventurous and make a porn! (not that id rent it, probably torrent it ) Anything! Just not cry in Federal court about it.

Amazingly, rather than laugh the suit out of court U.S. District Court judge Timothy S. Black, an Obama appointee, is allowing it to go forward.

What is equally curious, however, is why Judge Black has allowed the case to move forward and why he did not recuse himself from it since, as Barbara Hollingsworth reported Friday in The Washington Examiner, he apparently is the former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati. As seeming conflicts of interest go this one is a real humdinger.

If you can't beat 'em...sue 'em....and hopefully get a very liberal judge with special interests at heart to hear it.

reply to post by Carseller4


That is why this went under US Pol Madness and not Government Conspiracy. This is being done out in the open and with no regard for the sued parties... If he wins this it will open a particularly nasty door to new legal precedent and will be the greatest miscarriage of justice we have ever seen... There is no conspiracy, just The Good ol Boys club in public action...

reply to post by LanternOfDiogenes


Ah the insanity. But a word of advice OP. Don't trust reporting. They have twisted it around and left out information.

In actuality, the Susan B. Anthony group is the plaintiff and Steve Driehaus is the defendant. What Mr. Driehaus is doing is a counter-claim.

Originally posted by damwel
I know, it's terrible. Reminds me of what Dick Cheney did to that poor CIA agent because her husband spoke out against the war in Iraq.

Edt: In case you forgot it was Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.

Wikipedia
On July 14, 2003, Washington Post journalist Robert Novak, from information obtained from Richard Armitage at the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative.

Valerie Plame

How about getting your facts straight?

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Driehaus political ad litigation In the 2010 campaign, the organization purchased billboard advertisements in the district of Rep. Steve Driehaus of Ohio that showed a photo of Driehaus and said, "Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion"[107] The advertisement referred to Driehaus's vote in favor of the health care overhaul bill.[108][109] The SBA List takes the position that the health care legislation allows for taxpayer-funded abortion.[110] In response, Driehaus, who represented the heavily pro-life[107] 1st congressional district of Ohio, filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC), stating that the advertisements were false and violated Ohio election law.[111] The OEC ruled in Driehaus' favor in a probable cause hearing on October 14, 2010.[112] In response, the SBA List asked a federal judge to issue an injunction against the OEC on the grounds that the law at issue stifles free speech[111][113] and that its ads were based on the group’s own interpretation of the law.[110] The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio filed an 18-page amicus brief on the SBA List's behalf, arguing that the Ohio law in question is "unconstitutionally vague" and has a "chilling" effect on the SBA List's right to freedom of speech.[114][115] A federal judge rejected the SBA List's federal lawsuit on abstention grounds and allowed Driehaus's OEC complaint to move forward.[108][116] After the OEC complaint was filed, the SBA List began airing a radio ad in Driehaus's district in which Dannenfelser stated that the group "[would] not be silenced or intimidated" by Driehaus's legal action.[117] Driehaus was able persuade the billboard company to withdraw the SBA List's advertisement, which was never erected.[109] Driehaus ended up losing his seat to Steve Chabot in the November election. Driehaus then sued the SBA List in a second case on December 3, 2010, accusing the organization of defamation that caused him a "loss of livelihood",[118] arguing that the "First Amendment is not and never has been an invitation to concoct falsehoods aimed at depriving a person of his livelihood."[109] The SBA List countered by stating that the organization would "continue to defend the truth and the right to criticize our elected officials."[109] The SBA List continued seeking to have the law in question overturned; the ACLU joined in the organization's fight against the law.[119] On August 1, 2011, judge Timothy Black dismissed the SBA List's challenge to the Ohio law, holding that the federal court lacked jurisdiction since the billboards were never erected and the OEC never made a final ruling[120] and denied a motion for summary judgment by SBA List in the defamation case, allowing Driehaus's defamation claims regarding other SBA List statements to go forward.[121] The court also required that SBA List stop claiming on its website that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act subsidized abortion, because it did not do so. SBA List argued that its statements were opinions and were thus protected, but the court rejected this argument given that SBA List itself had claimed that this was a "fact."[122][123] On August 19, 2011, the SBA List appealed the decision on the Ohio law to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.[124]

So it was a counter claim It does not make his idiocy for loss of livelihood any less ridiculous... why even comment on the twist of reporters we all know they do it... Let me ask you this If you lost your job from underhanded office tactics, would you sue the person who pointed out you where doing a poor job and tried to push others viewpoints to the side? come on... this is absolutely insane... suing others because you lost your job by being a jackass is just a bad precedent and any of we lower folk who tried it would be laughed out of court... you have to see this for what it is political thuggery levied against an opposing party.

reply to post by LanternOfDiogenes


You confuse my insertion of facts for defense of this counter-claim. I am sorry if I am one to bring the whole and complete picture to a discussion so that people can make an informed opinion rather than a knee-jerk reaction based on a reporter's sensationalist claim.

What page would we be on if this was perpetrated by a Republican?

My guess would be at least 6 by now.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


he posted the ENTIRE claim so how was your "insertion of facts" even necessary, btw opinion = /= facts.

I would be interested to see the court transcrpits and what presecedents they use in this case and ultimately how this case turns out. It should be an interesting read, and the presecendent will either keep the freedom of speech or condemn it.