Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
One of the sadder subplots in last year's health care debate was what happened to pro-life Democrats. I'm all for pro-lifers being found in all parties. The Democratic Party used to be chock full of pro-lifers but were seriously sidelined for decades. Most of the gains Democrats made in recent elections, though, came from pro-lifers who were able to convince voters that you didn't have to support abortion to be a Democrat.
As the debate heated up on health care, though, many pro-life Democrats voted in a way not supported by the vast pro-life community. And they suffered at the ballot box. One of those has reacted to his loss in a very embarrassing way. Former Rep. Steve Driehaus sued the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life Pac, claiming that their accusations against him resulted in a "loss of livelihood." Meaning, resulted in his loss.
But what's really shocking is that a judge -- an Obama appointee who is the former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati -- has allowed the preposterous lawsuit to proceed to trial.
“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.”
Why am I not surprised that a Democrat would sue over his own inability to get re-elected? I am surprised, though, that this judge -- no matter how much he supports abortion or Democrats or whatever -- would have the audacity to do anything other than throw this suit out.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
As I said in my earlier post on this subject...let's laugh and point at and ridicule Mr Driehaus, but let's bring out the tar & feathers for this judge.
Edited on Oct 26, 2011 at 8:27amMay '11
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
I suppose the judge was thinking that it's not his job to decide the truth of a matter before the trial. If asked to dismiss a case, and I'm assuming the respondent did so ask, he is to treat the questions of fact as if they were decided in favor of the plaintiff, and if so, decide whether there can there be a judgment for the plaintiff based on the law?
So the judge would assume that the respondent was making malicious lies and these lies were intended to rob the plaintiff of his livelihood. Can he recover for malicious slander or libel in such a case? Should someone not be able to sue if lied about in such a way?
If so, then going forward to trial would be proper. The judge should not be tossing out cases just because he wants to.
Edited on Oct 26, 2011 at 8:51amRe: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
Charles Allen: As I said in my earlier post on this subject...let's laugh and point at and ridicule Mr Driehaus, but let's bring out the tar & feathers for this judge. · Oct 26 at 8:26am
Edited on Oct 26 at 08:27 am
Aw man! I don't know how I missed your post! Thanks for linking.
Oct '10
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
Recall a defeated politician attempted this a while back, anyone aware of the details or outcome ? May have been a CongressCritter.
May '10
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
It is a judge's job under his ethical guidelines to toss out frivolous actions when they are challenged and not waste the system's resources.
It is pretty obvious that here he wants to cause headaches for Susan B. Anthony's List and cost them money defending themselves that would otherwise be used for political activity.
That is, he is playing political advocate from the bench, and should be impeached by Congress.
May '11
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
But Duane, "IF" they were spreading lies about him, then must he by law just take it?
If a republican ran for office and some group claimed that he raped little boys and bred mutant ninja turtles to kill people with, and this was believed by the voters even though not true, would no lawsuit be allowed?
The law must be neutral. I'm sure the judge looked at the case and determined that IF the facts as alleged are true, then it is possible for the law to allow the plaintiff to prevail.
It would be very wrong for a judge to judge the facts before there was a trial. The entire point of a trial is to judge the facts.
Dec '10
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
Yeah! He has to take it. I'm no lawyer but my understanding is that public figures have little to no libel/slander protection. And, if you're at all familiar with the history of political campaigns in the US, lying about you're opponent is SOP. So, Driehaus lost an election. Boo-hoo! And, because he's an agrieved Democrat he gets to sue? Contemptible!
What is truly disturbing is that it appears the Democrats are devolving into the party where the rule of men has supplanted the rule of law as the governing pricinple.
Apr '11
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
Seems to point to a mindset that I suspect being typical amongst Democrats: The various elected seats are theirs, and it's only aberrations that cause them to lose elected positions.
Apr '11
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
Regardless of the merits of Dreihaus' lawsuit (which I still doubt, despite the lawyerly argument from the good barrister Skyler), It does indeed smack of a certain mindset among pols today, dems and repubs alike, that political office is a career choice, a "livelihood," rather than public service.
Do pols deserve remuneration for their work? In a word, yes. But like Alan W's comment above captures perfectly, "So, Driehaus lost an election. Boo-hoo!..." and, "Contemptible!"
Precisely!
IF the lawsuit is deemed frivolous on its face, does the judge, who, by the way, it could be argued, should have recused himself from reviewing the case, have to let it proceed to trial? No.
Apr '11
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
There is a great difficulty in evaluating stories like this because we are not provided the source documents needed to competently evaluate either the allegations of the lawsuit or the procedural context in which the Obama-appointed judge
Yeah , it sounds stupid, but courts and judges have to abide by certain rules and we have no information that suggests that the judge deviated from applicable rules and procedures. My guess is that the judge denied a motion to dismiss on the pleadings (i.e., not on the facts). My next guess is that it is probably a defensible ruling. In any event, the opprobrium of the Ricochetoise should be focused on the idiot ex-congressman, not on the court.
Feb '11
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
Can we pause for a second to recognize the revolting nature of the phrase "loss of livelihood'? Considering politics a game is one thing, but viewing it as job with wages is quite another, even as a vehicle for litigation. There is no notion of service or even that he serves at the pleasure of the voting public.
Rubbish.
May '10
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
Skyler: But Duane, "IF" they were spreading lies about him, then must he by law just take it?
.........................
The law must be neutral. I'm sure the judge looked at the case and determined that IF the facts as alleged are true, then it is possible for the law to allow the plaintiff to prevail.
It would be very wrong for a judge to judge the facts before there was a trial. The entire point of a trial is to judge the facts. · Oct 26 at 9:48am
If you are saying that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, every suit is entitled to court-based fact-finding, may I virulently disagree? In what universe does a judge not get the motion to dismiss and, based on the content of the motion, make a determination that even if the allegations were true, there is no case under the law?
Driehaus is a public figure. He has no legal recourse over opposing campaign statements. If the courts are now adjudicating this stuff and deciding if "malice" was present in TV ads, God help us.
May '10
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
Skyler: But Duane, "IF" they were spreading lies about him, then must he by law just take it?
If a republican ran for office and some group claimed that he raped little boys and bred mutant ninja turtles to kill people with, and this was believed by the voters even though not true, would no lawsuit be allowed?
The law must be neutral. I'm sure the judge looked at the case and determined that IF the facts as alleged are true, then it is possible for the law to allow the plaintiff to prevail.
It would be very wrong for a judge to judge the facts before there was a trial. The entire point of a trial is to judge the facts. · Oct 26 at 9:48am
All true in the most general sense, but Twombly v. Bell Atlantic and Ashcroft v. Iqbal should dispose of these claims on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; if not then, a motion for summary judgment should do away with it if the court feels it is necessary to waste time with discovery on such a ridiculous claim.
May '10
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
Duane Oyen
Skyler:
If you are saying that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, every suit is entitled to court-based fact-finding, may I virulently disagree?
Duane, can we agree to "violently" disagree? There's no reason to get the CDC involved.
Oct '10
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
Antiphon: Can we pause for a second to recognize the revolting nature of the phrase "loss of livelihood'? Considering politics a game is one thing, but viewing it as job with wages is quite another, even as a vehicle for litigation. There is no notion of service or even that he serves at the pleasure of the voting public.
Rubbish. · Oct 26 at 10:44am
Consider the politician as having a posiiton under a limited term contract.
The contract was simply not renewed.
Aug '10
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
Nailed it.
Oct '10
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
Molly:
You may be surprised that a Demo appointed judge would pervert common sense and the law and the Constitution to help a fellow leftwinger.
For myself, I am aghast at the naivete that you display in your original post. Have you not been paying attention to the courts for the last 50 years or so?????
May '11
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
Just to be clear, I'm not saying this suit is a good thing. I'm only saying that the judge is not the bad guy here. The judge could probably find cause to dismiss depending on the case presented to him, but failure to dismiss is not a tarring and feathering matter. Save that for the moron suing because he lost an election.
Dec '10
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
It's the sense of entitlement, the lack of accountability, and the lawlessness now blatant among Democrats in all branches which should make any American's blood run cold. As Hewitt says, you can't, in good conscience, vote for a Democrat for dog catcher these days! That's a lament, not a threat.
The incoherence of the guy's lawsuit is just stunning. A "pro-life" Democrat (in italics, because after ObamaCare, the species appears to be extinct) is suing a pro-life group because he supported legislation which included federal funding of abortion, which caused him to lose his elected position. By being un-elected. Why doesn't he sue Nancy Pelosi?!
Democrats are so radical now, they couldn't even extend the Hyde Amendment in ObamaCare in order to protect the jobs of their own people and peel away a few Republicans to bolster the "bipartisan" case for the legislation. Stunning.
Jun '10
Re: Democrat Sues Pro-lifers Over Electoral Loss
Having been a lawyer for over three decades, I've gotten to the point that little in the nature of judicial activism surprises me. But this one even causes me to blanch.
I must agree with Western Chauvinist that what we are seeing is the fruit of a sense of entitlement and a lack of accountability.
Back in my younger days, I cannot imagine a judge, no matter his or her political background, allowing such a frivolous case to proceed.
Our courts are rapidly being turned into a crude form of lottery where even the undeserving have a chance of hitting the big one, no matter how silly their case.