Failed Democrat Pol Sues Critics Over Election Loss

[CPA]

For all the dems talk about freedom, they're the ones that most often try to stifle free speech.

DMCA
Telecommunications Act

Just to name a couple other Dem-led acts of stifling freedom of speech.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Curious.

While this may not be the case here, someone should be held accountable if they deliberately spread lies about a candidate.

Better yet, a candidate should be held accountable if they lie. How about we jail them if they say that they will hold ATT accountable or that they would reduce or eliminate wiretaps without warrants? Of course that would hold for any candidate, not just the current one. How's that?

The courts have taken a hands off approach to political muck slinging. If we are going to go after critics, let's just skip to the people who are in charge. Never happen.

 

[PokerGuy]

Pretty typical dimlib response. The blame is always on someone else, never on ones own failings.

 

[HendrixFan]

The SCOTUS decision had nothing to do with free speech. It had to do with forbiding the Gore camp from deciding how to count ballots. Gore's team wanted to count selected ballots from selected precincts in selected ways. 11 years later, the dems still can't let go of this. It's their version of the birthers.

I know it had nothing to do with free speech and specifically said so.

Read it again. The SCOTUS said all the ballots would have to be recounted, not just select counties. They also said doing so would "cause irreparable harm" to Bush and "cast a cloud of legitimacy" on his presidency. I'm not making that up.

I'll say it again, since you clearly didn't read my post that you responded to.

I said:

The SCOTUS decided that the harm to someone trumped counting legal votes.

The concern with this case, should it come out in favor of the plaintiff, is that the harm to someone would trump free speech.

Of course it isn't the same issue as the Florida recounts, but it follows the same vein.

The idea that is similar for both, should this case come out favorably for the plaintiff, in that the potential harm to someone would override another legal protection, be it counting legal votes or be it free speech.

 

[woolfe9999]

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the court has the ability to impose legal fees on the plaintiff if the case is found to be frivolous. Perhaps not, in which case letting the case proceed is an even worse course of action.



I've read the recusal standards (back when there was all the talk about Kagan and the coming health care law challenges, and Thomas' wife getting funding from groups etc). Assuming wikipedia has the right information (ugh, did I just say that??), Title 28 section 455 of the US code indicates that

Based on the information provided about this case and the judge presiding over it, I don't see any way that a rational person could conclude that partiality of the judge could not be questioned.

You should google the "American rule" regarding the issue of attorney's fees. That will clear the matter up for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney's_fees)

Unless there is a statute in Ohio that specifically says the prevailing party in a defamation case can recovery his attorney's fees from the other side, it cannot be done here. And I can just about guarenty you there is no such statute in Ohio.

Regarding the issue of recusal, the standard you pulled off wiki is just fine. It's what they mean they say "impartially might reasonably be questioned" and "personal bias" that is the issue.

Your degree of certainty that this is a definite recusal situation to the point where you say the judge should be thrown off the bench for not recusing himself is unwarranted.

Judges generally do not have to recuse themselves because they have a political viewpoint on a particular issue. If that was the case, every judge would have to recuse himself in every case that raises a political issue because his view would conflict with one side or the other.

The classic recusal case for conflict of interest is where the judge either 1) stands to personally financially gain or lose from the outcome of the case; or 2) the judge is overly familiar with or has a known grudge against a specific party to the case. It's not a case where say, abortion is the issue, and the judge is known to be either pro-choice or pro-life because of prior writings or activism.

In this case, the judge's prior affiliation with Planned Parenthood indicates that he is pro-choice. That does not disqualify him from hearing the case. If his affiliation was current, that might be a differrent matter, particularly if he was drawing a paycheck from PP and this group was threatening that paycheck. The example given in the article comparing it to the prior owner of a gun store adjudicating a case regarding gun control is an apt comparison. The trouble is that this wouldn't be a definite recusal case either. The prior ownership indicates a pro-gun rights stance which is not a problem. If he was a current owner, then his bottom line could be affected by the outcome of the litigation. That is when you have a true conflict of interests.

This is a case where the judge has discretion to disqualify himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety. However, a judge can't be removed for not disqualifying himself to avoid the appearance of impropreity. He can only be removed for failing to recuse himself when there is actual impropriety. Having a political viewpoint, even a strongly held one, is not an actual impropriety.

- wolf

 

[piasabird]

The purpose of an election is to be able to get rid of politicians that the Public does not like. My complaint is we cant get rid of all of them at once.

 

[Double Trouble]

You should google the "American rule" regarding the issue of attorney's fees. That will clear the matter up for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney's_fees)

Unless there is a statute in Ohio that specifically says the prevailing party in a defamation case can recovery his attorney's fees from the other side, it cannot be done here. And I can just about guarenty you there is no such statute in Ohio.

Actually, there is a provision in the Ohio code that allows for attorney's fees to be awarded if there is "bad faith" on the part of the plaintiff. I'd argue this is just such an example.

Either way, you make a good point and I've learned new information about attorney's fees etc, thanks! That makes the judge allowing such a terrible case to proceed even worse, because it forces the defendant to spend even more money on such a frivolous suit, with no chance of recovering it. Shame on him.

Your degree of certainty that this is a definite recusal situation to the point where you say the judge should be thrown off the bench for not recusing himself is unwarranted.

Judges generally do not have to recuse themselves because they have a political viewpoint on a particular issue. If that was the case, every judge would have to recuse himself in every case that raises a political issue because his view would conflict with one side or the other.

The classic recusal case for conflict of interest is where the judge either 1) stands to personally financially gain or lose from the outcome of the case; or 2) the judge is overly familiar with or has a known grudge against a specific party to the case.

He headed up a group that the defendant specifically tried to eliminate (through de-funding). At the very least, it creates a strong appearance of impropriety, and any reasonable person would likely agree that the defendant is not likely to get a fair shake in that court (and by allowing the case to proceed instead of tossing it, he reinforced that notion).

I realize there's no legal mechanism to actually get him off the bench for this, but personally I don't think that judge is at all competent and I wouldn't think him qualified to be a federal judge.

 

[woolfe9999]

Actually, there is a provision in the Ohio code that allows for attorney's fees to be awarded if there is "bad faith" on the part of the plaintiff. I'd argue this is just such an example.

Either way, you make a good point and I've learned new information about attorney's fees etc, thanks! That makes the judge allowing such a terrible case to proceed even worse, because it forces the defendant to spend even more money on such a frivolous suit, with no chance of recovering it. Shame on him.



He headed up a group that the defendant specifically tried to eliminate (through de-funding). At the very least, it creates a strong appearance of impropriety, and any reasonable person would likely agree that the defendant is not likely to get a fair shake in that court (and by allowing the case to proceed instead of tossing it, he reinforced that notion).

I realize there's no legal mechanism to actually get him off the bench for this, but personally I don't think that judge is at all competent and I wouldn't think him qualified to be a federal judge.

Yeah, on appearance of impropriety, I can agree. It would be prudent for him to recuse in this case. Many judges would not do so under these kinds of circumstances.

So far as him being incompetent, I don't know. He ruled on a summary judgment motion. In order to win on summary judgment the defendant has to show there are no disputed facts on one or more essential elements of the case. The judge can disagree with the plaintiff's case and think they should lose, but he still has to bring the case to the jury. I'd like to see what all the challenged statements are and what evidence was brought forth.

A major problem I have with the merits of this type of case is actually the element of legal causation. This I suspect is why this type of claim is brought so rarely. While the truthfulness of the challenged statements and whether they were made with malice may be debatable enough to allow the jury to hear it, causation is another matter. Here, the plaintiff, in addition to proving the falsity of the statement and malicious intent, has to prove that the statements made by this one organization were the difference between a win and a loss in the election (he lost by 10 points IIRC). I note that several other organizations and people made similar allegations publically against him. In my mind this is nigh impossible for him to prove. He probably submitted some sort of expert testimony with the motion. I'd like to see just what that is. He has the burden to prove this, and it can't be proven with totally speculative evidence.

 

[fskimospy]

DMCA
Telecommunications Act

Just to name a couple other Dem-led acts of stifling freedom of speech.

You do realize that the primary sponsors of both those bills were Republicans, and that the Republicans controlled both houses of the legislature during those times, right?

Sure you can say that Bill Clinton signed it and the Democrats had their fair part in the legislation, but it would be a bit off the mark to call them 'Democrat led' acts.

 

[piasabird]

Freedom of speech. If it is OK for the President to lie, then what is the big deal? From past election campaigns, I would say deflamatory statements about your opponent or his voting record or his verbal statements, is how people get elected. I would just argue that that is an acceptable practice, then I would find evidence that my opponent did the same thing in the last election or current election. A lot of political statements depends or your political point of view.

Even politicians are allowed to change their mind.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I think the 'harm to Bush' argument came from the idea that Gore wanted to only count ballots that would help his cause. Gore should have shown the grace that Nixon did back in the 1960 election.

But I can see your overall point.

I know it had nothing to do with free speech and specifically said so.

Read it again. The SCOTUS said all the ballots would have to be recounted, not just select counties. They also said doing so would "cause irreparable harm" to Bush and "cast a cloud of legitimacy" on his presidency. I'm not making that up.

I'll say it again, since you clearly didn't read my post that you responded to.

I said:







The idea that is similar for both, should this case come out favorably for the plaintiff, in that the potential harm to someone would override another legal protection, be it counting legal votes or be it free speech.