Comments on: Update: ousted Congressman sues opponents for “loss of livelihood”

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 03:27:54 +0000

How does this differ from a suit for defamation? That is definitely constitutional, and if the facts are as alleged, the standard of “actual malice” for public figures is met. Loss of employment would merely be one aspect of the calculation of damages.

By: Smart Dude

Smart Dude — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 06:03:56 +0000

This must be a very, very special Federal Judge.

Obviously democrat party material for the Supreme Court.

(This nightmare of a judge was president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati ans an appointee of the Obama Regime).

By: Bill H

Bill H — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 04:21:53 +0000

Hmmm. This seems to be an attempt at a SLAPP suit on-the-cheap.

By: Jack B.

Jack B. — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 19:15:23 +0000

Richard Nieporent: if the judge is impeached, then won’t he have grounds to sue for loss of livelihood? There’s already well-established precedent, ironically enough, in a case he presided over!

By: Bob Lipton

Bob Lipton — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:53:53 +0000

How unfair that he will have to go and work in world he helped make.

Bob

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 12:34:36 +0000

Aside from the fact that this suit is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, the implication that being a politician is a livelihood is risible. A politician serves at the pleasure of the electorate. They can vote him out of office for any reason or no reason at all. The judge should be impeached for allowing this lawsuit to continue.