Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, December 20th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 17 Comments

Okay, this is just straight-up embarrassing:

What a sore loser. Even before he was kicked to the curb by Ohio voters, Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio, tried to silence the Alexandria-based Susan B. Anthony List for criticizing his vote for Obamacare after the Stupak amendment banning the use of federal funds for abortion was stripped out of the bill.

Citing an Ohio statute that makes it a crime to knowingly tell malicious lies about a public official, the formerly pro-life congressman filed a criminal complaint against the PAC on Oct. 6, insisting that the health care bill he voted for would not fund abortion.

The ACLU won’t get anywhere near this oversensitive little weenie.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, which came to the SBA List’s defense, couldn’t stomach Driehaus’ attempt at revenge, arguing that the Ohio law was unconstitutional because it forces the state to prosecute private individuals for criticizing public officials.“The people have an absolute right to criticize their public officials, the government should not be the arbiter of true or false speech and, in any event, the best answer for bad speech is more speech,” the ACLU Ohio’s amicus brief noted.

Guess who gets to decide if the Susan B. Anthony List crossed the line.

The kicker is that the people in Ohio who decide when political criticism crosses the line into defamation are the four members of the Ohio Election Commission, who are all happen to be political appointees.

Douchebag Driehaus insists on beclowning himself.

The day after the November election, Driehaus dropped his criminal complaint. But the sore loser is now suing the SBA List in federal court for defamation and “loss of livelihood” for pointing out his flip-flop on the abortion issue.

Stevie?  The term you’re looking for here is “man up” although some prefer “grow a pair.”

UPDATE: Sources indicate that Driehaus will expand the scope of his lawsuit.

17 Comments to BANKEE

Smurf Breath
December 20, 2010

It’s hilarious when Liberals buy into their own propaganda, innit?

I think that athletes who are beaten by other athletes should be able to sue the winners for “loss of livelihood”. I think lazy, slow students should be allowed to sue hard working clever students for using up all the scholarships that the former were entitled to.

And I’m curious about his case. If Obamacare didn’t fund abortion, why was it such a big deal to add the amendment? Why did that stall everything for so long?

December 20, 2010

Damn,payback is hell! Or, as my more genteel mother observed often in my youth, “What goes around comes around. Grow up.”

FW Ken
December 20, 2010

I googled “lawsuits against Emily’s List” and got information on lawsuits by Emily’s List. To be fair, the suits appear to be against campaign finance rules, not conservative politicians or entities. But the point is that conservatives don’t seem to be suing EL.

Don Janousek
December 20, 2010

In a case whose name I can’t recall at the present time, SCOTUS held that office holders have no property right in their office. Hence, his complaint is absurd.

Going after folks who tell the truth. Welcome to Oh!Bama’s America.

What a sorry excuse for a human being. He and Stupid Stupak have thirty million dead babies to answer for. Uh…the goat line forms on the left, Mr. Driehaus.

J.M. Heinrichs
December 20, 2010

Possibly SCOTUS had yet to comprehend the nuances of ‘Kelo’. Unless the Commerce Clause is involved.


December 21, 2010

FW Ken, I don’t follow your reference to Emily’s List, which is a pro-abortion feminist group. The group he is suing, the Susan B. Anthony List, is billed as a pro-life feminist group.

Surely he won’t get far with this suit. In the first place, the ads were not allowed to run (improperly, but that’s what happened). In the second place, the statement that the ObamaCare law will fund abortions is a statement of political opinion, not a defamation of Dreihaus’s personal character. Perhaps he has lots of campaign cash left over which he’d rather use on pointless lawsuits than let go of.

[…] The day after the November election, Driehaus dropped his criminal complaint. But the sore loser is … […]

Zach Frey
December 21, 2010

I love it when the ACLU manages to end up on the right side of a case.


December 21, 2010

I was going to say I can’t believe this, but on further consideration, of course I can.

The sheer hard-necked, tin-eared, copper-bottomed idiocy of the man is breathtaking. Suing for “knowingly telling malicious lies about a public official” in this political climate?

Right now, you could say about any member of any political party you like that they sold their soul to Satan when they were five years old, sealed the deal by sacrificing baby seals at midnight on Walpurgisnacht, fund their debauched jet-setting lifestyle of booze and drugs by pimping underage prostitutes of both genders, and sent their aged grandmothers into chattel slavery for the opportunity to get their photo in the newspaper, and I think no-one would find it in the slightest bit offensive about our elected representatives and selfless public servants on either side of the Atlantic.

At least 20 of our current members of Parliament over here in Ireland have already indicated they will not be seeking re-election next time round. When the rats are leaving the sinking ship, I really think Mr. Driehaus should take a good look at himself and get a clue.

December 21, 2010

Fuinseoig, perhaps the 20 MPs fear tar and feathers or worse if they run?

Really, when I consider the massive worldwide slanders aimed at George W. Bush, who may not be everyone’s cup of tea but who did not “lie” about the intelligence reports, this guy Driehaus sounds like the worlds worst crybaby. Even worse is his apparent sense of entitlement to elective office.

Allen Lewis
December 21, 2010

All of our so-called “Public Servants™” have that sense of entitlement. It is a large part of what got us into this mess. They have acted like little princes, princesses, viscounts and dukes.

We would be better served if the whole of Washington, DC were swept into the sea and rebuilt anew with a 75% reduction in the bureaucracy. Just enough to take care of what the Federal Government is actually supposed to do – not this bloated nightmare of trough-feeders that we presently have.

FW Ken
December 21, 2010

Katherine –

My point was that conservatives aren’t suing Emily’s List, although a lib is going after SBA.

Sorry to be unclear.

December 21, 2010

“I think lazy, slow students should be allowed to sue hard working clever students for using up all the scholarships that the former were entitled to.”

Just be patient for a little longer. It’ll happen. Probably in the Ninth Circuit.

Don Janousek
December 21, 2010

J.M. Heinrichs: Ah, yes, the Commerce Clause. I remember studying that in Con Law at Mizzou. Isn’t that the one that reads, “Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce between the several states plus the power to do anything it damn well pleases regardless of any other section of this Constitution?”

Kelso related to the “taking” clause of the 5th Amendment – a well-reasoned decision in which SCOTUS held that the gubmint can take your property at any time for any reason and you can just shut up and sit down. Yeah, I think that’s the one.

December 22, 2010

Thanks, FW Ken, I was confused. And you’re right. Advocating for political opinions and promoting political candidates is a fundamental American right, and it extends to people with whom we disagree. Most conservatives recognize this, and many liberals don’t. Read, for instance, John Fund’s chilling account of the goals and funding behind the FCC’s “net neutrality” power grab. The underlying goal of promoters, funded by left-wing foundations, is control of what opinions are expressed.

December 22, 2010

Katherine, in our current state, any politician who is not worried about having a noose slung about his neck and being dragged to the nearest lamp-post is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

I really don’t know what is going to happen in the General Election (looming sometime in the new year). The country is sold to the IMF and the European Monetary Fund as it is. Fianna Fáíl are not going to see any hope of a return to anything approaching power for at least five years; the prospect of a Fine Gael/Labour coalition (the only realistic prospect for a new government) is making me shudder – Enda Kenny as Taoiseach? Dustin the Turkey would do a better job!

I can see a lot of votes for Sinn Féin as protest votes – they’re about the only small party left to vote for, now that the PDs have imploded, the Greens have cut their own throats by being in coalition with FF in this government and the only other ones are Independent candidates each running on local issues or the likes of the Irish Communist Party (total membership: around five, if you include the cat).

December 22, 2010

I feel your pain, Fuinseoig, and I wonder when I’ll be feeling it even more on this side of the Atlantic. According to some things I have read, Ireland’s problems come from the same kind of wild investing and irresponsible lending and borrowing we had over here. There are discussions about what to do if California declares bankruptcy. Who will serve as the administrator? You are very unfortunate in that your administrator is going to be the EU.

Support The MCJ                        

Email the editor-in-chief                    
©2016 Christopher Johnson                                
                        Email about Website issues

Recent Comments