• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Failed Democrat Pol Sues Critics Over Election Loss

Curious.

While this may not be the case here, someone should be held accountable if they deliberately spread lies about a candidate.
 
This is just another case of the Democrat establishment trying to chill political free speech by threatening a lawsuit or legal action. It should come as no surprise to anyone that an Obama appointee wouldn't recuse themselves from an obvious conflict of interest case. The case will go nowhere, if they had a just cause to sue it would have been a slander or libel case. Politicians hate it when you tell the truth about them.
 
child of wonder said:
Curious.

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

There are libel and slander laws on the books and have been for centuries.

This is really sickening. Regardless of the fact that the defendant will ultimately win, the fact that the judge let the case proceed is enough to be a major chilling effect on future political speech. Say something bad about some candidate? Koch brothers legal team will sue you. Even if you ultimately win, you'll be out tens of thousands in legal fees, unless the judge decides to force the plaintiff to pay for legal fees (unlikely).

The other bad part in this story is that the judge clearly should have recused himself. If ever there was a clear conflict of interest, this would be it. He didn't recuse himself. That guy should be thrown off the bench asap.
 
Double Trouble said:
There are libel and slander laws on the books and have been for centuries.

This is really sickening. Regardless of the fact that the defendant will ultimately win, the fact that the judge let the case proceed is enough to be a major chilling effect on future political speech. Say something bad about some candidate? Koch brothers legal team will sue you. Even if you ultimately win, you'll be out tens of thousands in legal fees, unless the judge decides to force the plaintiff to pay for legal fees (unlikely).

The other bad part in this story is that the judge clearly should have recused himself. If ever there was a clear conflict of interest, this would be it. He didn't recuse himself. That guy should be thrown off the bench asap.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that pretty much the Supreme Court decision in the Gore recount thing? The potential harm to Bush if it was found that he didn't legitimately win meant we shouldn't do the recounts.
 
monovillage said:
bu bu but Bush!
lol
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court decision did not (oddly enough) have chilling effects on political speech. I fail to see how this case proceeding much less coming to a favorable verdict for the plantiff would have more of an impact.

Bush is window dressing in the point I'm making. His name can be mentioned in context in issues without your alarm going off, no?
 
HendrixFan said:
The Supreme Court decision did not (oddly enough) have chilling effects on political speech. I fail to see how this case proceeding much less coming to a favorable verdict for the plantiff would have more of an impact.

Bush is window dressing in the point I'm making. His name can be mentioned in context in issues without your alarm going off, no?
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS decision is not even remotely related to this issue. There was no question of defamation, libel, slander etc, it was a case about election laws and recounts etc. That's a different thread.

Even if the plaintiff loses (I expect that he will), it will cost the defendant a LOT of money in legal fees. If you posted a negative comment about one candidate or another and it ended up costing you thousands in legal fees to win the case, would you ever post your frank opinion again? Probably not, and neither would others. That's the chilling effect.

1) the case should have been tossed and the plaintiff should have been made to pay legal fees for the defense.
2) the judge should have recused himself but he didn't. He should be removed from the bench as he's clearly unfit to be a judge if he can't see the huge conflict of interest.
 
Hope this ends up well for the defendants. Otherwise, Obama will have the precedent he needs after next election for a similar lawsuit.
 
Double Trouble said:
The SCOTUS decision is not even remotely related to this issue. There was no question of defamation, libel, slander etc, it was a case about election laws and recounts etc. That's a different thread.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't have been related but it was. The SCOTUS ruled that Gore had a right to the recounts, but that the count would cause irreparable harm to Bush and cast a cloud of legitimacy on his presidency. There is precedent that the "harm" would overrule other factors. In the Gore case it overruled counting legal votes, in this case it would overrule free speech.

Bear in mind I think it is a stupid lawsuit and I hope it goes nowhere. My response was for the poster that said a "major chilling effect" would happen from merely letting the case proceed. If the Gore case is any indicator, then this case won't have any effect.
 
HendrixFan said:
The Supreme Court decision did not (oddly enough) have chilling effects on political speech. I fail to see how this case proceeding much less coming to a favorable verdict for the plantiff would have more of an impact.

Bush is window dressing in the point I'm making. His name can be mentioned in context in issues without your alarm going off, no?
Click to expand...

This case has zero to do with the old SCOTUS case, zilch. You either brought it up as a weak attempt at humor or a failed attempt at equating free speech with the judicial failure and malfeasance of the FSC.
 
monovillage said:
This case has zero to do with the old SCOTUS case, zilch. You either brought it up as a weak attempt at humor or a failed attempt at equating free speech with the judicial failure and malfeasance of the FSC.
Click to expand...

The case, no. The decision, yes.

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. My point in the matter wasn't humor, it was that no matter how this case turns out it would likely have no "chilling effects" or really any kind of lasting impact.
 
Double Trouble said:
There are libel and slander laws on the books and have been for centuries.
Click to expand...

Sure, but they never seem to come up in regards to politics.

Kerry could have sued the Swift Boaters. McCain could have sued Bush over the autodial surveys insinuating he had an illegitimate half black child. The list goes on and on.

Why don't they?
 
Last edited:
I don't think PACs, which can now be anonymously funded by anyone, should be immune from defamation laws. Of course, the burden is still on this guy to prove defamation, but I see no reason why he should be denied his day in court.
 
You don't want to get sued for libel, then don't libel someone. The First Amendment protects a lot of things, slander and libel aren't amongst them. Funny thing is I'm kinda glad he got voted out, what's the use in having a Democrat in office if he's against the protection of the individual rights of women, which this guy is against.
 
xBiffx said:
Hope this ends up well for the defendants. Otherwise, Obama will have the precedent he needs after next election for a similar lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Why is this only a precedent for democrats? The notion that a candidate can sue someone for defamation seems pretty universal to me. It seems a disturbing precedent that anyone could take advantage of.
 
Last edited:
Double Trouble said:
The SCOTUS decision is not even remotely related to this issue. There was no question of defamation, libel, slander etc, it was a case about election laws and recounts etc. That's a different thread.

Even if the plaintiff loses (I expect that he will), it will cost the defendant a LOT of money in legal fees. If you posted a negative comment about one candidate or another and it ended up costing you thousands in legal fees to win the case, would you ever post your frank opinion again? Probably not, and neither would others. That's the chilling effect.

1) the case should have been tossed and the plaintiff should have been made to pay legal fees for the defense.
2) the judge should have recused himself but he didn't. He should be removed from the bench as he's clearly unfit to be a judge if he can't see the huge conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

You have an awful lot of legal opinions here. By what basis does the court award attorney's fees in a defamation case? The American rule is that each party bears his own fees except in cases where a contract or particular statute says otherwise. The judge has no discretion to award fees here. It's against the law.

Also, I don't think you know the recusal standards for the federal bench.
 
child of wonder said:
Sure, but they never seem to come up in regards to politics.

Kerry could have sued the Swift Boaters. Cain could have sued Bush over the autodial surveys insinuating he had an illegitimate half black child. The list goes on and on.

Why don't they?
Click to expand...

Because traditionally the courts (wisely) have been very hesitant to get into that game because it opens up a huge minefield that could end up being a big detriment to free speech. In this case, the court should have followed that same route, but instead has chosen to let a merit less case proceed, thus hurting the defendant regardless of the outcome. Add the fact that the judge has an obvious conflict of interest but refuses to recuse himself, and you have a nice mess.
 
woolfe9999 said:
You have an awful lot of legal opinions here. By what basis does the court award attorney's fees in a defamation case? The American rule is that each party bears his own fees except in cases where a contract or particular statute says otherwise. The judge has no discretion to award fees here. It's against the law.
Click to expand...

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.

Also, I don't think you know the recusal standards for the federal bench.
Click to expand...

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
a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"
Click to expand...

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.
 
HendrixFan said:
The Supreme Court decision did not (oddly enough) have chilling effects on political speech. I fail to see how this case proceeding much less coming to a favorable verdict for the plantiff would have more of an impact.

Bush is window dressing in the point I'm making. His name can be mentioned in context in issues without your alarm going off, no?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hell, if this goes in favor of the plaintiff, you might as well go back to Thomas Jefferson's battle with John Adams and what the Republican and Federalist media was printing back then. It would put some of the stuff you hear today to shame - and this was during the Sedition Act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top