Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 26 Oct '11 04:06 / 1 edit
    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/10/24/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss

    If none of you have heard of this, it should be of no surprise considering the state of the press now days.

    Ohio's 1rst Congressional District Democrat Steve Driehaus was limited to one term after he was thrown out by the voters in Ohio. Steve then decided to get even.

    The former Congressman set his cross hairs on a group repsponsible for what is called the Susan B. Anthony list which sought to protect the unborn in the recent Obamacare legislation they supported. They then targeted the former Congressman for failing to uphold the "Stupak Amendment" which would have written into the legislation safegaurds for the unborn. The former Congressman then accused them of lying saying that the unborn had been protected in the legislation. Of course, this protection was nothing more than a flimsy Executive Order by President Obama to give such politicians cover which can be and will be some day overturned with the stroke of a pen. Nevertheless, the Congressman sought legal compensation saying that his "loss of livelihood" had been effected.

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

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, the most interesting part of this is the fact that for the first time a politician is suing groups for supposidly lying about him. On the one hand, it would be refreshing to see liars go down in flames and force politicians to tell the truth for a change. However, the dark side of this is obvious which is oppression of the freedom of speech. From where I stand, the law suit is baseless. If the former Congressman is allowed to win, it will basically shut down such groups from actively engaging in the political process, which is perhaps what is the desired goal.
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    26 Oct '11 10:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    Of course, the most interesting part of this is the fact that for the first time a politician is suing groups for supposidly lying about him.
    No politician has ever sued anyone for lying about him/her before in the U.S.?
  3. 26 Oct '11 12:13
    Originally posted by FMF
    No politician has ever sued anyone for lying about him/her before in the U.S.?
    To my knowledge there has never been a politician who has brought a suit in court on the basis that his loss of livelihood has been effected from a previous election.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    26 Oct '11 12:22
    Originally posted by whodey
    To my knowledge there has never been a politician who has brought a suit in court on the basis that his loss of livelihood has been effected from a previous election.
    So it's not, then, the first time a politician has sued a group for lying about him/her?
  5. 26 Oct '11 14:45
    Originally posted by FMF
    So it's not, then, the first time a politician has sued a group for lying about him/her?
    From what I have gathered, the occurence is rare. One other case seems to be Jeff Green who lost a Democrat nomination in Florida. He sued a few newspapers for getting their story wrong about him.

    Howecver, what intrigues me is the notion that the livelihood of the politician is the grounds for sueing someone. I thought they were "public servants". In fact, many of the Founding Fathers forked over their entire riches just to be public servants. Today, politicians only seem to be interested in making a buck.
  6. 26 Oct '11 15:17
    Originally posted by whodey
    From what I have gathered, the occurence is rare. One other case seems to be Jeff Green who lost a Democrat nomination in Florida. He sued a few newspapers for getting their story wrong about him.

    Howecver, what intrigues me is the notion that the livelihood of the politician is the grounds for sueing someone. I thought they were "public servants". In ...[text shortened]... s just to be public servants. Today, politicians only seem to be interested in making a buck.
    A pity your party does not want to abolish the legalized bribery of politicians.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    26 Oct '11 15:20
    Originally posted by whodey
    However, what intrigues me is the notion that the livelihood of the politician is the grounds for sueing someone. I thought they were "public servants".
    You seem to be misrepresenting the story, whodey. He is not suing for "loss of livelihood" as you insinuate over and over again. He is suing for defamation, as I think you well know. The "loss of livelihood" reference merely indicates the seriousness of the charge of defamation. In other words it's not a defamation suit over hurt feelings: it's over what he claims are "malicious lies"

    As for your mention of "public servants", indeed Driehaus has addressed this in his comments about his suit: "I have chosen to proceed against the SBA List in federal court because the issue at stake goes beyond the purview of the Ohio Elections Commission [...] As more and more interests are able to anonymously spend unlimited sums of money in attempts to defame public servants and influence our elections, it is imperative that groups such as the SBA List be held to account for their behavior. Lies have consequences."

    While I do not agree with Driehaus' course of action, your unnecessarily partisan framing of the story (it gives cause for concern to thoughtful people, whodey, even without using the "loss of livelihood" soundbite to spin it) seemed to me to be disguising the actual nature of the law suit.
  8. 26 Oct '11 20:30
    Originally posted by whodey
    To my knowledge there has never been a politician who has brought a suit in court on the basis that his loss of livelihood has been effected from a previous election.
    Then what did they cite as damages?