Politician Sues Critics Over Election Loss
October 26, 2011 7:16 AM Subscribe
When voters failed to re-elect Steve Driehaus he decided to get even. He did what anyone does in today's culture: he sued somebody. The Susan B Anthony List, a PAC, published a list of anti-abortion-rights politicians who voted for ObamaCare. Their opinion was that such a vote was in violation of the politicians, including Steve Driehaus's pro-life stance. Instead of Dreihaus' lawsuit being thrown out as a first amendment issue, Judge Timothy S. Black has agreed to hear it even though he is the former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati which would seem to be a create a conflict of interest. If this lawsuit is successful, it could have chilling implications for future political debate.
This post was deleted for the following reason: This maybe needs to be rewritten in a totally different way if it's going ot be okay for MeFi. As it is it's outragefilter on an already touchy topic. Thanks. -- jessamyn
I don't get it. How is a vote in violation of a politician?
posted by spicynuts at 7:23 AM on October 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by spicynuts at 7:23 AM on October 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
If Judge Black is not currently working for Planned Parenthood, why would that be a conflict of interest? He has no current interest in Planned Parenthood.
"Conflict of Interest" does not mean "personally supports the goals of the plaintiff/defendent or disagress with the goals of the plaintiff/defendant." If that were the case, no judge in America could hear any case, ever.
posted by muddgirl at 7:23 AM on October 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
"Conflict of Interest" does not mean "personally supports the goals of the plaintiff/defendent or disagress with the goals of the plaintiff/defendant." If that were the case, no judge in America could hear any case, ever.
posted by muddgirl at 7:23 AM on October 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
"Pro-life." "Obamacare."
Won't somebody think of the elephants?
posted by Jehan at 7:24 AM on October 26, 2011 [4 favorites]
Won't somebody think of the elephants?
posted by Jehan at 7:24 AM on October 26, 2011 [4 favorites]
Okay, I had to go to the first link to figure out what was going on here. The second sentence is a fragment which is not clearly related to the first, and the third is almost incomprehensible. I've tried to give up my grammar pedantry, but something like this always happens to bring it bubbling back up.
posted by valrus at 7:28 AM on October 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by valrus at 7:28 AM on October 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
I have a real problem understanding what the situation is here.
posted by demiurge at 7:29 AM on October 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by demiurge at 7:29 AM on October 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
For what it's worth, here's a more detailed and balanced story from ... wait for it ... Fox News.
posted by grimmelm at 7:29 AM on October 26, 2011
posted by grimmelm at 7:29 AM on October 26, 2011
- Steve says he's anti-choice but votes for a bill that supposedly will kill babies.
- An anti-choice org tells his voters that
- He fails to be re-elected
- Steven sues the organization
The chillingness presumably comes about because if he wins then nobody can call politicians on their BS.
posted by DU at 7:30 AM on October 26, 2011 [5 favorites]
- An anti-choice org tells his voters that
- He fails to be re-elected
- Steven sues the organization
The chillingness presumably comes about because if he wins then nobody can call politicians on their BS.
posted by DU at 7:30 AM on October 26, 2011 [5 favorites]
Thanks for the summary DU.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:31 AM on October 26, 2011
posted by shakespeherian at 7:31 AM on October 26, 2011
Uh, wow. US News and World Report? That schmatte? I haven't read it since I was doing Extemp in high school. In 1978.
Still a piece of crap I see.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 7:31 AM on October 26, 2011 [4 favorites]
Unless I'm mistaken, a right-wing politician is suing a right-wing political group because they said he wasn't right-wing enough.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:31 AM on October 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:31 AM on October 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Short version, what I can parse: the SBA list (nice feint, like the KKK renaming itself for MLK) had ads and spread bullshit about Driehaus. Driehaus sued for...slander?
Yeah, lots of Republican magic words in this one.
posted by notsnot at 7:32 AM on October 26, 2011
Yeah, lots of Republican magic words in this one.
posted by notsnot at 7:32 AM on October 26, 2011
I'm not a lawyer so perhaps there's a more clear-cut violation here than I know but I'm going to agree with muddgirl. If Judge Black doesn't have an current role with PP then his past involvement just signals his beliefs.
Anyway, this seems like a situation where both sides are assholes but the SBA assholes will probably win. What's so chilling about a case merely being allowed to proceed? People file and lose stupid lawsuits all the time. If Driehaus starts getting rulings in his favor maybe then we can start being worried about the effects on political speech.
posted by ghharr at 7:32 AM on October 26, 2011
Anyway, this seems like a situation where both sides are assholes but the SBA assholes will probably win. What's so chilling about a case merely being allowed to proceed? People file and lose stupid lawsuits all the time. If Driehaus starts getting rulings in his favor maybe then we can start being worried about the effects on political speech.
posted by ghharr at 7:32 AM on October 26, 2011
From the post I can't even figure out who this guy is suing and what specifically he is suing for, except the implied "because he lost the election"?
posted by kiltedtaco at 7:33 AM on October 26, 2011
posted by kiltedtaco at 7:33 AM on October 26, 2011
Oh, apparently lost in the soup I read was that Driehaus actually *is* anti-choice. Huh.
posted by notsnot at 7:33 AM on October 26, 2011
posted by notsnot at 7:33 AM on October 26, 2011
I don't get it. How is a vote in violation of a politician?
I thought this as well, but the OP meant that the vote was in violation of their declared stance on the issue, I think. There should be a comma after "Steve Driehaus's" and before "stance". It's confusing in part as well because it's a strange way of thinking - that a politician could "violate" their own stance.
posted by clockzero at 7:34 AM on October 26, 2011
I thought this as well, but the OP meant that the vote was in violation of their declared stance on the issue, I think. There should be a comma after "Steve Driehaus's" and before "stance". It's confusing in part as well because it's a strange way of thinking - that a politician could "violate" their own stance.
posted by clockzero at 7:34 AM on October 26, 2011
OK, according to Peter Roff's editorial I don't understand conflict of interest. Why would this be a conflict of interest?
Also, it's fun to read the Roff piece, but replace every reference to health care with something like "transportation bill"
posted by muddgirl at 7:35 AM on October 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Absolutely—and it's something everyone should see clearly, as they would if the former head of a local gun owners group was given the responsibility for hearing a case testing the constitutionality of a concealed carry law.A judge can be a gun owner, and even be the former president of a gun owner's association, and still fairly and impartially judge the constitutionality of a concealed carry law. That is the foundation of our judicial system, and if Roff doesn't understand that, then how can he possibly be a credible commentator on American politics?
Also, it's fun to read the Roff piece, but replace every reference to health care with something like "transportation bill"
During the 2010 elections the Susan B. Anthony List engaged in a campaign to identify and call out a group of allegedly anti-abortion-rights members of Congress who provided the margin that allowed President Barack Obama's reform of the nation's transportation system to get through the U.S. House of Representatives. The Susan B. Anthony List said their vote in favor of the law, which did not include any pro-life protections, amounted to a betrayal of their pro-life principles...Isn't that entirely ridiculous? What does being pro-life have to do with a transportation bill? Or rather, what does being pro-life have to do with a healthcare bill?
...The accompanying executive order the president signed regarding abortion was designed to provide political cover to a group of House Democrats whom he needed to win. It was no substitute for the so-called "Stupak Amendment" that would have written pro life protections into the transportaion bill but was defeated on the House floor.
posted by muddgirl at 7:35 AM on October 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
If Judge Black is not currently working for Planned Parenthood, why would that be a conflict of interest? He has no current interest in Planned Parenthood.
Indeed. He last worked for Planned Parenthood in 1989, a detail omitted by a lot of coverage of this story. Furthermore, PP isn't a party to the case, nor would it be affected by the outcome.
The linked opinion piece was written by an idiot who couldn't be bothered to do basic research. From the piece: "someone, maybe the House Judiciary Committee, needs to take a look at how he was assigned the case in the first place." Judges in the Southern District of Ohio are randomly assigned to civil cases [pdf]. That took me all of one Google search to find.
Note he requests that the case be looked into by the House Judiciary Committee. This is almost certainly because the House is controlled by Republicans, unlike the Senate.
posted by jedicus at 7:36 AM on October 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Indeed. He last worked for Planned Parenthood in 1989, a detail omitted by a lot of coverage of this story. Furthermore, PP isn't a party to the case, nor would it be affected by the outcome.
The linked opinion piece was written by an idiot who couldn't be bothered to do basic research. From the piece: "someone, maybe the House Judiciary Committee, needs to take a look at how he was assigned the case in the first place." Judges in the Southern District of Ohio are randomly assigned to civil cases [pdf]. That took me all of one Google search to find.
Note he requests that the case be looked into by the House Judiciary Committee. This is almost certainly because the House is controlled by Republicans, unlike the Senate.
posted by jedicus at 7:36 AM on October 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. A former senior political writer for United Press International, he is currently a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and at Let Freedom Ring, a non-partisan public policy organization. His writing has also appeared on Fox News' Fox Forum.
United Press International: also known as Unification Church cult of Sun Myung Moon.
Institute for Liberty: a DC think tank most recently involved in promoting the ideas that government healthcare is a faulty system.
Let Freedom Ring: a "non-partisan" organization set up with $1 million in conservative funding in 2004 to.... promote the Iraq war and the re-election of George W. Bush
Fox News: yeah.
I'm sorry, something something about conflicts of interest.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:37 AM on October 26, 2011 [6 favorites]
United Press International: also known as Unification Church cult of Sun Myung Moon.
Institute for Liberty: a DC think tank most recently involved in promoting the ideas that government healthcare is a faulty system.
Let Freedom Ring: a "non-partisan" organization set up with $1 million in conservative funding in 2004 to.... promote the Iraq war and the re-election of George W. Bush
Fox News: yeah.
I'm sorry, something something about conflicts of interest.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:37 AM on October 26, 2011 [6 favorites]
What if we switched the parlance from 'anti-choice' to 'anti-freedom?' I think it would maximize right-wing cognitive dissonance. (Because they hate us for our freedom, right?)
posted by kaibutsu at 7:38 AM on October 26, 2011
posted by kaibutsu at 7:38 AM on October 26, 2011
Judge Black could have the necessary distance to render an impartial verdict, but simply donning a rob does not make one impartial.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:38 AM on October 26, 2011
posted by jeffburdges at 7:38 AM on October 26, 2011
Was the OP so frothing at the mouth with excitement over posting this steaming pile of turd that he/she couldn't even proofread?
posted by spicynuts at 7:40 AM on October 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by spicynuts at 7:40 AM on October 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
There is ZERO conflict of interest. Unless a judge or his or her spouse has a financial interest or represented a party to the suit, there's no conflict. NONE.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:43 AM on October 26, 2011
posted by Ironmouth at 7:43 AM on October 26, 2011
Judge Black could have the necessary distance to render an impartial verdict, but simply donning a rob does not make one impartial
We're sort of talking on two different levels - of course judges rule partially. They are humans. However, the foundation of a democratic judicial system is the fiction that judges can be impartial despite personal opinions or former political or social connections. If we don't hold that fiction, then we cannot ask any judge to rule on anything. They will always carry some kind of bias.
posted by muddgirl at 7:47 AM on October 26, 2011
We're sort of talking on two different levels - of course judges rule partially. They are humans. However, the foundation of a democratic judicial system is the fiction that judges can be impartial despite personal opinions or former political or social connections. If we don't hold that fiction, then we cannot ask any judge to rule on anything. They will always carry some kind of bias.
posted by muddgirl at 7:47 AM on October 26, 2011
« Older Police raid and mass arrests at Occupy Oakland | Burton Holmes, Inventor of the Travelogue Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Regardless of opinions on reproductive rights, seriously?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:23 AM on October 26, 2011 [2 favorites]