Former Ohio Congressman's Lawsuit Will Proceed in Federal Court—in Spite of the First Amendment


Steve Driehaus

Former Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) lost his re-election campaign last year and he knows who to blame. Not voters, but the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), a pro-life political action committee that Driehaus is suing for defamation. He claims their criticism of him as insufficiently pro-life was a malicious lie that contributed to his defeat and thus his "loss of livelihood."

The SBA List's purported defamation? Since Driehaus voted for ObamaCare, which contained no anti-abortion provisions, he betrayed his pro-life beliefs. Driehaus claims he betrayed nothing. A difference in opinion at most. Driehaus did promise not to vote for ObamaCare unless it banned federal funding of abortions and that he did not keep.

In an editorial for U.S. News & World Report, Peter Roff writes:

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.

Black was also once the president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati, which Roff sees as a direct conflict of interest since the SBA List have been fighting to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

But that's not Roff's only problem with the suit:

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.

The current civil suit comes after a criminal complaint which did seem to have a chilling effect on speech from the start. Driehaus's initial suit, based on an Ohio law which criminalizes lying about public officials, prompted the SBA List to ax plans to put up billboards criticizing the congressman. Driehaus dropped the case the day after he lost his re-election bid. But Judge Black recently allowed the civil defamation case to go forward.

The Washington Examiner opines:

Of course, one person's "malicious lies" are another's political speech. Fines and even prison sentences allowed under Ohio's False Statement Law are tantamount to muzzling any speech that someone disagrees with, which is basically all political speech.

The SBA List, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, unsuccessfully sought an injunction against the law in 2010, and is now attempting to appeal in federal court based on First Amendment grounds.

Reason on criminalizing lying

NEXT: Google Refuses to Remove Police Brutality Video

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Who needs Citizens United when you have this?

  2. This asshole better get punked hard in the defamation case. But it’s civil; you never know.

    1. Don’t drag me into this. I’ll sue your ass!

  3. an Ohio law which criminalizes lying about public officials

    This is blatantly, obviously, clearly against the first amendment.

    However, one wonders if it can be used to prosecute politicians who lie about themselves and their own accomplishments?

  4. ObamaCare, the gift that keeps on giving.

      1. And to thank Burt Stupack gave up his political career for that. WTF did the Democrats do to that poor bastard? Or rather how many post political millions did they promise him.

        1. If you read any recent interview with Bart, he’s still proud of his political sellout.

          1. What does he think he got?

            1. Answered below. In addition to that, Stupak is working quite closely with his state’s medical education system, encouraging alternatives to D&E, but is shoulder deep in forming medical education policy. That, John, is what Stupak wanted: More Federal influence at the state level.

        2. ^^ this!.

          The best possible explanation for Stupak is waking up next to a horse head. There is no second or third place excuse.

  5. A Job is a Right!

    1. He claims their criticism of him as insufficiently pro-life was a malicious lie that contributed to his defeat and thus his “loss of livelihood

      well, at least he admits that elected office is simply his means of earning a living off the taxpayer’s teat, rather than any B.S. about some ‘calling’ to public service out of his sense of duty to his fellow man…

      “A JOB (in elected office?) IS A RIGHT!!”

  6. Also disgusting is the fact that being a representative in Congress is accepted as a “livelihood”.

    1. I thought the concept was that in America, we (theoretically) didn’t have professional, career politicians. It’s not the House of Lords, and he didn’t inherit his seat. Instead, he was elected by voters to represent constituents in the government. If they didn’t vote for him, for whatever reason, so be it. But he has no claim to the elected position as his livelihood.

    2. Agreed. It should be volunteer work, or better yet an alternative sentence for misdemeanor infractions.

      1. It can’t be volunteer work or you’d only have the idle rich, like Megan McCain. It has to be term limits. 2 terms in any public office in the federal government. No exceptions.

    3. Yeah not only is it now their livelihood but they can’t even have another livelihood (not even for free). See Dr.s Paul and Coburn.

      While they have their own problems, at least the Texas legislature only meets for six months every two years then they go back to their normal lives.

  7. Big surprise that this got signed by George Voinovich – R (Professional Toolbox).

  8. Jezebel sees nothing wrong with this lawsuit.

    Of course, if it was, say, the Pro-Choice Emily’s List being sued, I feel that they would be singing a different tune.

    1. But they lie don’t you understand, those kind of people don’t have a free speech rights. That is just hate speech.

    2. Of course they don’t. They’re partisan scum and have zero integrity, like all partisans. Big surprise.

      1. Oh epi, only you can see everyone else on earth for who they are: scumbags.

        1. Most especially bipolar scum like you, rectal. How’s that depression going?

          1. Depression is a typology manifestation of the [POLIS] city-state, which uses agriculture to support the [AMERICAN-ISRAELI EMPIRE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX]


            1. Now THIS I like

              1. *bows* Though unfortunately my modest attempt at trolling was annihilated by rectal…

            2. It always comes down to the Jews doesn’t it?

          2. I hate seeing her down in the dumps this bad. I think we’d better put her down. You know, for our own good.

            1. Did I mention how much I like to rub feces in my hair and on my face?

              But not just any feces.

              Turkish feces.

              1. Turkish feces.

                mmmmm. Turkish delight!

              2. You’re doing an absolutely terrible job, rectal. Maybe you should just sit H&R out until you’re done with this depressive phase.

                1. She’s really sub-par when she’s not manic.

                  You’re embarrassing yourself, rectal. More than usual.

              3. Oh, rectal, I do so hate to see you like this? Why not overdose and relieve the pain?

  9. This is a clear violation of the Shitbag Act of 2011 ( Sugarfree, et al)

  10. I want to believe that the judge is letting this go forward for two reasons: 1) to let the Ohio public official law be hammered by SCOTUS, and 2) to publicly destroy any remaining vestige of Driehaus’ dignity.

    1. Reasons why I will never be a federal judge. I would just have too much fun on cases like this. I would hammer his attorney with a Rule 11 sanction the likes of which God has never seen and award attorneys’ fees. Leave him living under a bridge avoiding his creditors.

      1. He’ll be paying fees for bringing a frivolous action, I’m sure. Just a matter of time.

        If nothing else, we protect speech about political matters more than other speech. No way something like this can be allowed. Even the chilling effect of allowing harassing, costly litigation to proceed is a problem.

        1. Stupid work, interfering with my ability to post in a timely manner.

    2. As long as Driehaus is forced to pay all legal and court costs, I’m ok with this. Too often does the costliness of legal proceedings have a chilling effect on liberty without the case even going to trial, even when the defendant
      is clearly in the right.

  11. The constitutional requirement of “actual malice” for a claim like this is very clear, and the jury will be instructed accordingly. I have no problem with this. If you want to go negative and flame a politician, have you facts in order. Liability for provable malicious lies, tried before an impartial jury, could actually do our democracy some good.

    1. Suing people into poverty defending frivolous law suits will not. It already caused SBA to no put up the bill boards. And a malicious lie is nothing but a slander. And politicians can certainly sue for slander. But as public figures, they have to meet the NYT v. Sullivan standard. This law is nothing but a state legislature trying to over rule NYT v. Sullivan. Sorry, that won’t fly.

    2. The fact that you put any stock in impartial juries, provable malice, objective truth conditionals, and inclusive collective pronouns makes it painfully clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    3. Liability for provable malicious lies

      But the problem here, to me, is that he can’t possibly prove falsehood.

      “Betrayal” is a nebulous enough concept that as soon as I claim you have “betrayed” me in some way or “betrayed” some ideological or philosophical ideal in some way, the claim self-referentially proves itself. If I feel betrayed, I am betrayed. If I have some insane standard of philosophical purity that I claim you haven’t lived up to, the claim again self-referentially proves itself. I can make up whatever ridiculous purity standard I want.

      If he can’t possibly prove the claim false, he can’t prove it to be maliciously false, either.

      1. Exactly. If they had said something objectively provable like he is an Al Quada mole or he takes money from the Chinese, then a libel suit would be appropriate. But there is no way to litigate whether someone is actually “sufficiently pro life”.

        1. What about if they claim he fucks sheep?

      2. I can make up whatever ridiculous purity standard I want.

        You must be a libertarian!

        1. I bet “T” doesn’t have a decoder ring….YEP, just as I suspected!


          *shuns T*

  12. http://www.washingtontimes.com…..-smuggler/

    Considering all of the outragous shit that cops get away with, WTF?

    A U.S. Border Patrol agent has been sentenced to two years in prison for improperly lifting the arms of a 15-year-old drug smuggling suspect while handcuffed ? in what the Justice Department called a deprivation of the teenager’s constitutional right to be free from the use of unreasonable force.

    Agent Jesus E. Diaz Jr. was named in a November 2009 federal grand jury indictment with deprivation of rights under color of law during an October 2008 arrest near the Rio Grande in Eagle Pass, Texas, in response to a report that illegal immigrants had crossed the river with bundles of drugs.

    In a prosecution sought by the Mexican government and obtained after the suspected smuggler was given immunity to testify against the agent, Diaz was sentenced last week by U.S. District Judge Alia Moses Ludlum in San Antonio. The Mexican consulate in Eagle Pass had filed a formal written complaint just hours after the arrest, alleging that the teenager had been beaten.

    Defense attorneys argued that there were no injuries or bruises on the suspected smuggler’s lower arms where the handcuffs had been placed nor any bruising resulting from an alleged knee on his back. Photos showed the only marks on his body came from the straps of the pack he carried containing the suspected drugs, they said.

    There is no rule of law in this country anymore. If the Mexican government wants you in jail, you are done. If you are a union protected metro cop, you can beat up a guy in a wheel chair and not even get fired.

    1. I used to deal with the border nazi checkpoints on a regular basis traveling well within the borders of my country. It caused me discomfort be have to answer questions from guys named Jesus Diaz with thick accents asking me if I were a U.S. Citizen, where I was going, where I was coming from, and what my business in Alamagordo was.

      Based on the story, it seems like Diaz was railroaded, but I’m having a hard time bringing out the tears.

      1. If they can railroad him to please the Mexican government, they can railroad anyone. This is scary.

        1. I agree with the principle. It’s just my initial emotional reaction.

      2. *alamo*gordo.

        Big fort. My bad.

  13. And it is a good thing he doesn’t look like the douchebag he seems to be or anything. Could he have possibly met the stereotypical asshole politician better in that picture?

    1. He’s not wearing a tie, but his collar is still buttoned, making it look like a popped polo.

      1. What kind of fucked up dress shirts do you wear? The top button is clearly undone. The collars themselves are buttoned down but that’s how it’s supposed to be done.

        1. That’s how it’s supposed to be done if you’re wearing a Texas Rat Snake as a tie and you want to keep her from getting away. Otherwise you look like a colossal tool.

    2. He just looks like a doughy former jock. I bet he’d be great at being a junior high school football coach who screams at his players when they miss a tackle.

      1. OMG that is exactly what he looks like.

  14. Malice-plus-falsity IS NYT v. Sullivan, and as long as the jury is properly instructed, the statute does not violate the First Amendments.

    Frivolous lawsuits that cost too much money are a problem that requires legal reform, not an abridgement of legal remedies.

    Whether a frivolous suit is brought against a political group trying to flame a congressman, or an ordinary Joe Schmoe minding his own business, the problem is the same. And the solution is not to block legitimate claims and frivolous claims alike. The solution is to filter legit claims from fake ones early in the process.

    1. But not in this case. If they had said he was a member of Al Quada knowing it wasn’t true. But there is no way that saying someone is “insufficiently pro life” could ever meet the standard of NYT v. Sullivan, since what constitutes “insufficiently pro life” is a completely subjective question and therefore can never be a provable falsity.

      1. This case should be tossed even if we didn’t have the Sullivan standard.

        How can this guy prove that it was the SBA list that put voters over the edge, as opposed to his opponent just running a better campaign?

    2. In addition to the problem of non-provable falsity I describe above, the other problem here is that he’s not claiming a loss of reputation or something intangible – he’s making a tangible claim of loss of income based on his Congressional salary.

      But he has no presumptive right to a Congressional salary and therefore can’t have an actionable harm if he loses it.

      The voters are entitled to remove him from office for true reasons, false reasons, absurd reasons, unfair reasons, whatever. If the voters say, “We voted this guy out of office because he’s black,” that would be both false and against discrimination law, but it wouldn’t matter. Because there can be no legal requirement for voters to vote a certain way, and no presumption that they would have voted a certain way in the absence of any particular public argument or discussion, whether true or false.

      1. Because there can be no legal requirement for voters to vote a certain way

        Wanna bet?

  15. Someone help me understand my own fucked up psyche. Why am I, in some twisted way hoping that a publicly elected official who sues over “loss of livlihood” when he loses an election, wins this lawsuit?

    I can’t quite formulate all my feelings on this case, but in some way, I’m thinking that if he wins this suit it’ll be a giant ‘fuck you’ to the political class.

    I’m probably wrong.

    1. If he won, it would set a precedent that could make it virtually impossible for election winners to assume office, let alone do any work. This could be the greatest breakthrough in political checks and balances since the guillotine.

      1. I should hire you as my therapist. I like the way you successfully analyzed my thoughts on this. Go Steve Driehaus!!!

      2. 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.

        Apropos of this, I’m beginning to side with the progressives, except they don’t go far enough. All political speech should be shut down.

        No campaigning, no speechifying, nothing. You go to work, live in your house, and when you vote, you simply have a ballot with some random names on it, no pictures.

        When the elected officials want to pass a tax, it doesn’t get to be called the “Save our children and our future Tax!”.

        It’s a line item on the ballot that says, “Tax: $72 a year on property owners.”

        That’s it. Your representatives aren’t allowed to be photographed, aren’t allowed to talk to their constituents. We just look around at our world and either vote for them again or vote for a new name on the list.

        In fact, fuck that: there are no names on the list. Every slot is a write-in.

        1. Get rid of party names on the Ballot too. This would probably increase the name recognition value of incumbency (which is bad), but for newly open seats would essentially take away voting power from people who reflexively vote TeamDonkey or TeamElephant and don’t even know why.

          1. Incumbents have to be write-ins too. If you don’t remember who your incumbent is, too bad.

        2. “When the elected officials want to pass a tax, it doesn’t get to be called the “Save our children and our future Tax!”.
          It’s a line item on the ballot that says, “Tax: $72 a year on property owners.”

          This is already illegal, but for some reason, no politician ever gets sued for false advertising.

  16. When are they gonna sue Obama?

    He lies every fucking day.

    1. He lies about the bad guys. No problem.

    2. Once he says it, than it’s true.

  17. Back in the olden days, a sense of shame prevented these sorts of lawsuits. But Stevie has no sense of shame. He ranks below truck-stop prostitutes on the No-Shame-O-Meter.

    1. And truck-stop prostitutes provide a public service.

  18. so when Ohio State Issue #2 (Senate Bill 5, public sector unions thingy) fails due to union lies, will this precident provide recourse?

  19. Off-topic and unrelated to anything:

    Putin’s personal photographer is smoking hot.

    In. Before. Sentence counters.

    1. Yes dear, she’s my personal “photographer”.

      1. No dear, it’s nothing like that! I was only showing her some old wrestling moves I learned in high school. We took our shirts off because we didn’t want them to get wrinkled. Jeesh! You’re so jealous, you silly!

    2. Jesus. Putin knows how to live.

      1. He really is the world’s only first class super villain.

        1. Dear Leader might count. And what about, say, the Sultan of Brunei? He might be evil, for all we know.

          1. I think we all now understand why Bush liked him. He wanted to be him.

          2. Dear Leader is such a loser though. I guarantee you, he isn’t living as large as Putin. You can’t be a super villain if you are having to beg the Chinese to not cut off your heroin running profits just so you can keep the lights on at your secret lair.

            1. PLUS HE SO RONREY

              1. Yup. People make fun of Kim Jung Il. But even Putin’s detractors admit he’s a badass.

          3. Yeah but Obomba hires chicks like Elena Kagan and Hillary Clinton.

            Putin knows how to hire femme fatale assassins.

        2. What about Berlesconi, less evil, more booty–> win win!

    3. Samples of her work, include scantily-clad photographs of glamorous models, cats and birthday cakes, have drawn scathing comments over her appointment.

      Do they have something against kitties?????

      1. Do they have something against BIRTHDAY CAKE and kittehs?!!


          1. Thank you for saying “please”, Warty!

      2. Whoa, whoa – you mean you read the captions?

        1. Yeah. The caption for photo 4 was rife with double entendre.

      3. Photography is not rocket science.

        This chick would have a good chance to get good pictures of me – because I’d smile on the inside every time I saw her walking over with her camera.

        Despite the man hands and excessive height.

        1. She has man hands? I never looked at her hands…

    4. Meanwhile from the same site, Bollywood is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy.


      1. You would kill for my intern John. She’s the hottest 21 year old Indian girl I’ve ever seen.

        1. There is an Indian restaurant in my town. It seems to be the hip place to hang out for the local Indian under 30 set. The food is very good. But it is difficult to eat there with my wife and not having her throw a drink in face for staring at other women.

        2. And my experience has been that even the hottest Indian woman is very nice and not the usual princess.

  20. So here is Obama’s new student loan plan:


    Apparently the new plan is:

    1. Borrow all you want from the federal government.

    2. Your payment is capped at 10% of your income.

    3. Regardless of how much you have paid back, the remaining balance is forgiven after 20 years.

    OK, can anyone see the moral hazard here? Can anyone predict with me the unintended consequences here?

    Under such a system, the person who wins is the person who manages to waste the most student loan money.

    The economic winner here will borrow the greatest possible amount, earn the lowest possible income on paper afterwards, and walk in 20 years.

    The person who borrows a small amount and earns an income immediately after graduation pays their entire loan. The person who borrows the maximum amount and then dicks around after graduation pays less – MUCH less.

    There is no limit to the absurd Rube Goldberg policy contortions they’re willing to undertake to try to make up for the initial mistakes of the student loan program.

    1. What? Are you serious? This is insane.

      Look, let’s just say it–kids get a lot of student loan money for expenses unrelated to school. My wife has a friend who made a down payment on a car and partially paid for her wedding with student loans. She’s a default waiting to happen, so she just needs to wait it out?

      Even without that sort of, well, fraud I guess, the whole business makes no sense. I’d much, much rather just make the debts dischargable going forward, so, at least, they have to go through the bankruptcy process prior to walking away from their debts.

      Jesus, what is wrong with Americans today?

      1. Why do you hate Americans, ProL?

      2. You just hate the children don’t you pro? Don’t you think a college education is a civil right? You monster.

      3. Yup, there was more moral hazard in play back when people were undertaking strategic bankruptcies.

        Hell, I’d prefer a system of outright grants to this system.

        Then at least everyone could apply for the grants openly, and the greatest benefits wouldn’t go to malingerers and cheats.

        Seriously, why pay any money of your own towards your education AT ALL under such a system? Why save any money?

        I am saving post-tax dollars for my kid’s education, and this plan makes me a dumbass for doing so. I should actively plan to be cash-poor when college rolls around, so he can borrow the maximum amount. Why not? His payment is capped. Any dollar you save only hurts you, because the winner here is the guy with the largest loan.

        1. Yup. I have known of a couple of people who quit their jobs and gifted their savings right before their kids’ senior year for just that reason. A system of grants would be much better.

        2. You’ve convinced me. And I’m not being snarky. If this plan goes through, I’m going to stop saving for my daughter’s college, I’m going to tell her to borrow to the fucking hilt, and then spend the next 10 years of her life snowboarding before settling into a job. That way she’ll be ten years into her loan-length limit, her income will be sufficiently low, and she’ll get to spend her young years having fun instead of being nose-to-the-grindstone.

          And no, I’m not kidding about any of it.

          1. Where does all the money for this come from? I thought we had fiscal woes and stuff?

            1. Comes from you guys. By the time my daughter’s in college, I plan to be a pensioner on the government dole anyway. Now get back to work, Pro L, my daughter needs an education.

            2. Where does all the money for this come from? I thought we had fiscal woes and stuff?

              Shorter Paul: I’m totally behind Obama’s embracing of the Greek model.

              1. I’ve got four kids, including one in college. Should I tell him to borrow as much as possible?

                1. I’ve got four kids, including one in college. Should I tell him to borrow as much as possible?

                  Well, not until the law passes.

              2. Wait, “Greek” and “Behind” shouldn’t appear in the same sentence.

        3. There is, I believe, a more nefarious element to this Fluffster: There’s a certain law, let’s call it, I dunno, ObamneyCare that is being hotly contested, which needs medical professionals, as there is a legit shortage of doctors and nurses.

          Becoming a physician or an advanced practice nurse is very expensive, not to mention time consuming, and the debt alone is something that causes prospective medical applicants to balk (though in this depressed economy, applications to both medical and advanced practice nursing programs are markedly up). And new doctors hate spending a very large chunk of their professional lives repaying that debt.

          I’ve long maintained that the primary focus of Federal intervention in the student loan program is yet another power grab at the health care industry through dictation of the financial aspects of medical education, and will logically permutate into a medical corp where loans are forgiven provided one is in good medical standing (read: you practice where we want you to practice and in what discipline, a la “community rating.”) All the other basket weaving degrees are largely a politically expedient red herring designed to permit access to the areas where Federal control is more desirable. Even if (BIG if) SCOTUS rules against the mandate and severability, The Fed still will maintain a firm financial grip on those new doctors and advanced practice nurses through the new loan diktat and state medical associations will be more than happy to endorse this. It will prove to be very popular and won’t be going anywhere, especially with residents making less than starting nurses, on average, throughout their residency.

          If the Feds started off subsidizing the more practical and utilitarian professions, I believe there would have been even more political fallout than there already is IRT ObamneyCare.

          For Stupak, his personal prostestation against D&E’s aside, it was never about that procedure, he was a willing stooge for the so-called “greater good.”

          Yet one more reason for me to absolute hate Flopney with a burning, dripping abscess passion, and I would gladly push him down a long flight of stairs and not give it a second thought, metaphorically speaking of course, since on the state level he made ObamneyCare politically viable.

          1. Your theory, while intriguing, requires too much forward thinking from Obama. I’m guessing he just wants to look good to the spotty teenagers that elected him.

            1. Your theory, while intriguing, requires too much forward thinking from Obama.

              Obama is just the pitchman and hatchet man for this incredible ball of bloody shitstain. This was a concerted effort from all sides. I have heard members of my own medical board and association espouse what I have posited, and most nurses and the majority of med students I know are totally on board with Federal expansion. I have heard with my very ears med students say, “We don’t care how much you pay us to practice in rural and remote areas; without suitable access to regional and Federal financial considerations, we ain’t gonna do it.”

    2. I need to go get that theology or medieval history PHD on the government’s dime. WTF do I care how much it costs. That is lunacy.

      If you really are concerned about how badly this generation got screwed, okay create this as a hardship plan for existing loans. But then cut the hell out of loans going forward so it doesn’t happen again. But for God’s sake don’t just encourage more stupid behavior.

      1. I need to go get that theology or medieval history PHD

        Do it. Then you might have some substance.

        1. It is my only hope.

          1. But will you make more money than Warty?

            1. No. But I promise to spend what I do make on something besides cat food and German death metal records.

              1. What the fuck else would you want to buy?

                1. What the fuck else would you want to buy?

                  Russk “photographers” might be a good place to start, if one is into that sort of thing.

    3. OK, can anyone see the moral hazard here? Can anyone predict with me the unintended consequences here?

      *raises hand, tentatively*


    4. Why do you hate education?

    5. This isn’t intended to pass. The sole purpose is this to help Obama get re-elected. He doesn’t care about you, your kids, or the country. All he cares about is getting re-elected.


    Just practicing my Occupy Wall Stupid drummin, man.


  22. Public figure, asshole. NY Times v. Sullivan. Actual malice.

    Fuckin’ A. Suck it up and grow a pair, ya fuckin’ whining pantywaist.

  23. U.S. District Court judge Timothy S. Black, an Obama appointee

    What, he’s an Obama appointee, and he’s letting this jack shit lawsuit – against a (D) – proceed? Me am shocked.

    And his last name is “Black”?


    1. It is actually a jack shit lawsuit brought by a (D). But hey you are on a roll.

      1. Excuse me – that is what I meant. I was on a little rant there.

  24. Doesn’t he also have to somehow prove he’d have won the election but for the speech in question?

    Everything about this lawsuit is idiotic.

    1. Biden is menace.

      1. Hey, Reason… you hafta do a thread on the Biden gets pissy after being asked uncomfortable questions thingy above.

  25. loss of livelihood.

    Admittance that he is nothing but a tax-fed leech should disqualify him from ever holding elected office.

    Probably won’t even slow him from filing papers in the next election cycle.

  26. Air thief!!!

    Air thief!!!

    Air thief!!!

  27. based on an Ohio law which criminalizes lying about public officials
    Does that include public officials lying about themselves? Put me on that jury.

  28. hello,welcome to http://www.luckygrip. com,i hope everyone will more like them because of there have more nice top goods and cheaper price in there,thanks

    1. Your welcome.

  29. Driehaus is a tiny douchebag.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.