Dem. Candidate, That Lost Election, Sues For Loss Of Livelihood. Judge Agrees.

[twyacht]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/10/24/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss

There's nothing quite like a politician scorned.

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.

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.

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.

Never mind the considerable constitutional issues involved; Judge Black needs to step aside and let a different jurist take over the case. And someone, maybe the House Judiciary Committee, needs to take a look at how he was assigned the case in the first place because, right now, the whole thing smells like day-old fish left out in the hot sun.

****

Some activist Judges appointed not elected, should be run out on a rail....This is a clear case of needing hip-waders, as the S*** is getting thick in this one.

[fightingquaker13]

Is there more info here TW? Right now this seems beyond odd. First, what was said or alleged to have been said? Second, why is an elective office considered to be a property right or rather, why would one be able to place a claim on it?

That said, the Susan B Anthony Folks are an anti-choice feminist group with their own agenda and a history of playing rough. If it can be shown that they committed libel, then maybe. Still, it seems you would have to prove that they knowingly told a lie, and but for that lie that the election would have gone the other way, and second guessing an election is not something a sane judge will do without overwhelming evidence. That's just for starters. You would also have to show that the candidate was somehow entitled to his salary. To me, this seems like a damn tough row to hoe. I don't have any facts to go beyond laying out the legal theory, but this one just seems damn weird.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

FQ, read the freaking article.
They said he cast a vote that he actually did cast. It may have been a malicious statement but it was true.
This is just another example of what you refuse to believe about the dem party.

[fightingquaker13]

FQ, read the freaking article.
They said he cast a vote that he actually did cast. It may have been a malicious statement but it was true.
This is just another example of what you refuse to believe about the dem party.

That's why I am confused. Truth is a defense from libel. Unless it was a pure lie, he should have no case. (Even if it was a pure lie, and one knowingly told, its still a problem). This is screwed up, right, left and center. Something is fishy IF the article (which I read) is to be belived. There might be more to the story. I'm waiting for more info. but the facts so far? The guy is screwed.
FQ13