Defeated Democrat Congressman sues group who contributed to his loss

Al Gore set the precedent: If you lose, sue.  Details:

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.

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.

What a jackwagon.

Let the arrogance and gall sink in for a second.  Driehaus is saying that because he lost an election, he had a “loss of livelihood”…as if he had a right to live off of the taxpayers’ dime!  Hey, he’d fit right in with the Occupy Wall Street losers, wouldn’t he?  With that kind of entitlement mentality, no wonder he’s a Democrat.

So why did the Susan B. Anthony List oppose Driehaus?

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 healthcare 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.

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. …

The SBA List said that voting for ObamaCare was a vote against their pro-life principles.  How can this be a lie?  They saw a vote for ObamaCare without the Stupak Amendment as a vote against pro-life, and Driehaus did vote for ObamaCare.  So exactly where is the lie?

Anywho, at least a judge is tossing the case out of court with a guffaw and scorn.  Nah, just kidding:

…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.
…
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.

First Amendment?  Bueller?  Bueller?

So, an Obama appointee who used to be the director of Planned Parenthood of Cincinnati didn’t think there was a conflict of interest in hearing a case involving an organization who is opposed to PP’s mission?  A man who used to run the nation’s largest taxpayer-funded abortion mill organization is somehow totally objective when it comes to lawsuits against a group that was undoubtedly a thorn in his side?  Un-friggin’-believable!

I doubt any court above this one will uphold a ruling in favor of Driehaus, and I am certain that higher courts would take Black to the woodshed.  But how shameful is it that a loser sues a group for trying (with success) to get him defeated in an election by simply reporting his vote and not endorsing him for his vote?  Election results would be forever altered if courts allow this kind of shameful sore loserness to occur.

Advertisements