{"id":5325,"date":"2011-10-26T19:01:24","date_gmt":"2011-10-26T23:01:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=5325"},"modified":"2016-10-30T05:28:39","modified_gmt":"2016-10-30T09:28:39","slug":"democrat-loser-sues-because-he-lost","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=5325","title":{"rendered":"Democrat loser sues because he lost"},"content":{"rendered":"
Greetings all, It’s been busy which is why my posting level is low. Still, I saw this story on the Drudge Report and just had to comment. It seems that Democrat Steve Driehaus, late of the 1st district in Ohio, is upset that he was voted out of office in 2010.<\/p>\n
Driehaus, being the typical Democrat, believes that he should be in office for life and that people should not be told about his record. So what’s the story here?<\/p>\n
From USNEWS.com:<\/p>\n
Failed Democrat Pol Sues Critics Over Election Loss<\/strong><\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 No, he decided to get even.\u00a0 So he did what anyone does in today’s culture: he sued somebody.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
What a spoiled brat. This is your typical Democrat, someone who truly believes that it is his right to rule over people. So, just what did the Susan B. Anthony group actually do?<\/p>\n
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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Ok, they decided to let the voters know just what their representative was actually doing rather than what he was saying he was doing. The Horror! The Horror! How dare these…these..People actually talk about Driehaus’s voting record!<\/p>\n
Now you would think that this case would be laughed out of court, wouldn’t you? Well, you thought wrong.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Obviously, this judge must be a Reagan or Bush appointee. Nope! Barack Obama appointed Judge Numb Nuts<\/em><\/del> Black.<\/p>\n
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<\/em>, he apparently is the former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati.\u00a0 As seeming conflicts of interest go this one is a real humdinger.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Yeah, I would say that’s a conflict of interest. If this case actually makes it to a jury and is some how ruled in favor of Dickhead Driehaus, it will be overturned on appeal. However, this will still open a really big door that should be bolted shut. This is a classic use of the First Amendment by the S.B. Anthony group.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Now why would this surprise USNEWS.com? Like most Communists<\/em><\/del> Totalitarians<\/em><\/del> Progressive Elitists, Judge Black really doesn’t like the Constitution very much.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I suspect we’ll have to wait until the new congress is seated in 2013 to revisit a number of the judicial appointees of Barack Obama. His appointments will have long lasting effects if they are allowed to stand.<\/p>\n
Why do we have to wait?<\/p>\n
Easy.<\/p>\n
Dingy Harry Reid and the rest of the corrupotocrats will do everything they can to protect these judges. After all, it’s not like these scum actually care about things like:<\/p>\n
\n
Their Oaths of Office<\/li>\n
The United States of America<\/li>\n
The Constitution<\/li>\n
Their constituents<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Remember, your vote counts!<\/p>\n
Unless you’re plan on voting for a Communist<\/em><\/del> Democrat, then your vote counts for nothing so you may as well stay home, sipping that bottle of malt liquor, watching Oprah and taking another hit off your new bong.<\/p>\n