Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

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.

October 26, 2011 - Posted by | abortion, judiciary, shameful


  1. What a puss! Both Driehaus and Black. It’s obvious that Driehaus is unprincipled, and Black shouldn’t be where he is as he, too, has no principles. No surprise there. An Ovomit appointee with no principles is like saying a fish has scales. It’s already a known fact.
    This one will be thrown out in the next court, unless there is another Ovomit appointee Judge lurking in that one, too.
    Liberals still don’t surpise me.

    Comment by J. Guidry, Battlefield, MO. | October 26, 2011

  2. It shouldn’t surprise me either, but the NEW level of entitlement-thinking even shocks me! Dear Lord in heaven, that the media would give even a SLICE of attention to the dethroned politician who views his elected position as a source of “livelihood” rather than the position of service that it is supposed to be (I know, gross naivety) . Heck, it wish there WERE consequences of lying in political races and lobbying, because 1) SBA would be free from the claim, but 2) (and more importantly), virtually ALL left wing lobbyists would be opening themselves up for accountability!
    Seriously though, this reaches new heights in gall!!!!!

    Comment by Kevin | October 26, 2011

  3. We will suffer the effects of “Obama appointees” for many, many years to come. Let us hope and pray that Obama is out of office before any more Supreme Court vacancies occur. That, more than any other reason to dump him, scares the crap out of me.

    Comment by Dux | October 26, 2011

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: