New First Amendment Case Brewing

New First Amendment Case Brewing (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 7:43:27 PM)
From U.S.News & World Report... Failed Democrat Pol Sues Critics Over Election Loss When voters in Ohio's 1st Congressional District threw Democrat Steve Driehaus out of office after only one term, he did not bow out gracefully. No, he decided to get even. So he did what anyone does in today's culture: he sued somebody. 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... Driehaus's suit is breaking new legal ground and may already be having a very chilling effect on political speech. It goes directly at the heart of our First Amendment protections and criminalizes what is at least a difference of opinion. And it's curious that the case has not received more attention from the national press. 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. More from the Washington Examiner... Judge oks ex-congressman's suit over lost job Voters in Ohio’s 1st District retired Driehaus because he broke a promise not to vote for Obamacare unless it contained an explicit statutory ban on federal funding of abortions. The final law that Driehaus voted for lacks such a statutory exclusion -- which has led the newly elected House to pass the Protect Life Act. Driehaus’ defeat at the polls was a result of his own duplicity, not the result of SBA pointing it out. Nevertheless, on August 1 Judge Black ruled that Driehaus’ preposterous lawsuit should proceed to trial. The judge, an Obama appointee, is the former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati, according to answers on the questionaire he submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee... “For our group to be accused of lying with malice just for stating the facts has such ramifications for anybody else who has a First Amendment right to criticize a public official without fear of a lawsuit.” Do you think this case should have been (or will be) thrown out of court, or do you think it has merit? K.

FirstQuaker -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 8:11:55 PM)
So a politician thinks he has a right to be elected to a office and can sue others for interfering with this right? Why not just sue the person that won for stealing his "rightful" position too, since the actual winner of the election is clearly at greater fault in depriving him of this "right" under this theory of his? I

DarkSteven -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 8:19:19 PM)
Interesting. Had this been a simple libel case, then Driehaus would have had three points he had to prove: 1. That the SBA had lied. 2. That its intent was malicious. 3. That Driehaus was damaged. The third point is evident - he lost his job. There is no way that he could prove the second, and the first-cited article states that they did not lie. So he would have no luck with slander. I have no idea what grounds Driehaus could sue on, since the SBA did nothing more than report the truth, and urge voting against him. IF the suit doesn't get laughed at, it would be a horrible restriction on openness in politics. I'm kinda sad that with lies being slung around all over, the lies themselves were not challenged in court but a truthful statement was.

TheHeretic -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 8:24:20 PM)
It's the judge that needs to be thrown out for not stepping away. I think the lawsuit is worth a summary punch in the face, for the plaintiff.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 8:24:25 PM)
Interesting... I suspect this will evolve into an abortion thread but I hope not. Should and elected member of Congress represent his constituency or... should the Representative, upon being elected vote his or her conscience? I think the answer is both, with a nod to the later. And there in lies the rub. The sad fact is, for most elected servants, the first rule is get reelected. Former Congressman Steve Driehaus had the chance to be honorable and say, I believed in my vote. I did what my conscience told me was right and I honor the the will of the PEOPLE I represent in Congress. I will keep up the fight for my views and those who believe I was right. Sadly, he wants to play the blame game. Just to be clear... I believe a person elected to office has a responsibility to the people who voted for them up and until, it conflicts with the moral and or ethical views of that elected officer. The consequence of course, is that the elected officer understands in a democratic republic, the People will decide and should decide the fate of that officer. That is the American Way folks.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 8:27:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic It's the judge that needs to be thrown out for not stepping away. AB-SO-LUTE-LY!

DarkSteven -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 8:29:18 PM)
FDD, reading your post made me think of Thoreau's principle of civil disobedience. In this case, Driehaus wants to vote his conscience - which I have some issues with if it does not reflect his constituency's views, but it will happen - WITHOUT taking the consequences of his vote. Ain't what Thoreau preached.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 8:51:21 PM)
I think it did! Outstanding observation! Maybe this thread will not devolve! But I do think it's a two edge sword. An candidate stands before the Electorate and says THIS is who I am. I best reflect the views of the People. The People then elect said candidate because they believe they have found the man or woman who best respects their views. BUT, in the personal, they voted for them because THEY think, that person can do the BEST job. There is an implicit trust that is.. "You will do what is right" HOWEVER... the elected official has the Free Will that is the cornerstone of Western Civilization and SHOULD exerciser their conscience. Such "Elected" Official has two choices... 1) I will vote my conscience or 2) I will resign and allow the people to decide.

Lucylastic -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 9:36:49 PM)
I dont think the guy stands a chance in hell, what a pratt..despite it being about the A word, while I dont like the methods, to me its frivolous. just on the info here..I hope he loses. IIf the judge is recused...the next judge should be someone without a religous affiliation. I retain the right, upon further knowledge increase... to change my opinion!!!!

FatDomDaddy -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 9:53:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I dont think the guy stands a chance in hell, what a pratt..despite it being about the A word, while I dont like the methods, to me its frivolous. just on the info here..I hope he loses. IIf the judge is recused...the next judge should be someone without a religous affiliation. I retain the right, upon further knowledge increase... to change my opinion!!!! If you were not married, I'd love you

tazzygirl -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 10:11:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I dont think the guy stands a chance in hell, what a pratt..despite it being about the A word, while I dont like the methods, to me its frivolous. just on the info here..I hope he loses. IIf the judge is recused...the next judge should be someone without a religous affiliation. I retain the right, upon further knowledge increase... to change my opinion!!!! Another stupid suit to clog up the court system. [8\|]

SternSkipper -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 11:05:07 PM)
quote: Do you think this case should have been (or will be) thrown out of court, or do you think it has merit? This is not a new application of the malice clause. It's only a different target... a group rather than a paper or network. But they have in the past behaved as if they were a news outlet (which I am sure they are busy scrubbing off the web [:D])... If this is the same Susan B Anthony outfit that was operating like 8 years ago they had sections of their site that looked like news. we'd have to see exactly what they published to know if there was malice. But hey, I doubt it's a real big reach to imagine a pro-life outfit bearing a grudge and making it their mission to go after someone. But only way to know is to see the history. But yeah you can sue an objective party hiding behind freedom of the press if they exhibit malice.

SternSkipper -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 11:08:47 PM)
quote: Interesting. Had this been a simple libel case, then Driehaus would have had three points he had to prove: 1. That the SBA had lied. 2. That its intent was malicious. 3. That Driehaus was damaged. Ya think the damages are the lost election itself and some ethereal value or the costs of the election monetarily?

SternSkipper -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 11:14:23 PM)
quote: So a politician thinks he has a right to be elected to a office and can sue others for interfering with this right? Why not just sue the person that won for stealing his "rightful" position too, since the actual winner of the election is clearly at greater fault in depriving him of this "right" under this theory of his? Flowery but utterly moot ... he isn't suing on the basis of a 'right' to run for or be elected to, any office. He is suing an entity that he perceives as having behaved in a libelous fashion toward him and acted with malice aforethought.., which he will have to prove was either the primary or sole cause of his losing. Next to impossible if you ask me, but lawful. Either way, it's sour grapes and well he'll reap what he sews.

SternSkipper -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 11:22:09 PM)
quote: Another stupid suit to clog up the court system. Ya wanna talk system clogs? Wait till all these protesters start their jury trials. NOBODY that I have heard of so far has plead guilty to the criminal trespass, unlawful assembly, or the various criminal curfew violations. In every state I've lived in, the "not guilty" plea immediately entitles every American and Foreigner for that matter to a jury trial <cha ching>... Before this movement even finishes their occupation the dockets could be stretched back a couple years... course there will probably be pardons if they don't declare us non-military combatants instead. The suits are then gonna take a long time ,....since all of this ins constitutionally protected expression. .

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 11:36:52 PM)
I happen to think it is being allowed to go forward so that it can be defeated. Just throwing it out wouldn't be as effective or as strong a statement as defeating it in open court.

tazzygirl -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 11:45:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: Another stupid suit to clog up the court system. Ya wanna talk system clogs? Wait till all these protesters start their jury trials. NOBODY that I have heard of so far has plead guilty to the criminal trespass, unlawful assembly, or the various criminal curfew violations. In every state I've lived in, the "not guilty" plea immediately entitles every American and Foreigner for that matter to a jury trial <cha ching>... Before this movement even finishes their occupation the dockets could be stretched back a couple years... course there will probably be pardons if they don't declare us non-military combatants instead. The suits are then gonna take a long time ,....since all of this ins constitutionally protected expression. . Most of them wont see the inside of a court room.

Kirata -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/25/2011 11:57:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper Ya wanna talk system clogs? Wait till all these protesters start their jury trials. This thread is not about the OWS protests. Thank you. K.

DarkSteven -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/26/2011 4:38:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: Interesting. Had this been a simple libel case, then Driehaus would have had three points he had to prove: 1. That the SBA had lied. 2. That its intent was malicious. 3. That Driehaus was damaged. Ya think the damages are the lost election itself and some ethereal value or the costs of the election monetarily? If you hadn't truncated my post when quoting it, the very next sentence would have clarified that the losses were his job. He did not pay for the election to be held, and thus has no standing to complain about those. And the costs of campaigning, if that's what you're referring to, were a given expense to keep the job.

Marc2b -> RE: New First Amendment Case Brewing (10/26/2011 6:53:04 AM)
I'd like to see the filing papers rammed down his throat. Then after he chokes to death on them we plant an American flag in his ass, gather around in a circle and sing the National Anthem. But that's probably a little overboard... I'd settle for a dismissal.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125