2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSCOTUS: A-OK for anti-abortion groups (and others) to lie in political campaign ads
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an unanimous opinion Monday that the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List has standing to sue over an Ohio law that prevented it from making false statements about a political candidate in 2010.
SBA List tried to erect billboards in Ohio in 2010 that accused then-Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) of supporting "taxpayer funded abortion" because he voted for the Affordable Care Act. Driehaus successfully filed a complaint against the group under an Ohio law that prohibits "false statements" during a political campaign, because federal dollars cannot be used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape and incest.
Driehaus withdrew his complaint after losing his reelection race, but SBA List continued to challenge the Ohio law against false political speech on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment right to free speech. Two lower courts ruled that the group could not continue to challenge the law in district court because it was no longer facing a sufficiently imminent injury, but the Supreme Court unanimously reversed those decisions Monday in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus.
"Denying prompt judicial review would impose a substantial hardship on petitioners, forcing them to choose between refraining from core political speech on the one hand, or engaging in that speech and risking costly Commission proceedings and criminal prosecution on the other," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the unanimous opinion.
<snip>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/16/scotus-sba-list_n_5499404.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Stryst
(714 posts)Our media is going to be filled with very slick adds that will show every Dem candidate is a child molesting muslim cannibal socialist.
66 dmhlt
(1,941 posts)That may well be the final - and TERRIBLE - outcome, but that is NOT what the Court said.
It only ruled that the group has standing, and thus their suit will be allowed to go forward.
It did NOT rule on the merits of their claim. Sadly, I think they eventually will - but not on this ruling.
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/06/16/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-challenge-to-ohios-criminalization-of-false-political-statements/
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62377
djean111
(14,255 posts)The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)Quite a sight, people rearing up on their hind legs to fight for the right to lie. It should be thrown in their faces whenever they open their mouths that the only honest thing they ever said was telling a judge, "Your Honor, I'm a liar, and please let go on telling lies and deceiving people for personal and political profit." Because the people who filed this are liars, and know they are liars, and know telling the truth would be their doom.
"In searching for truth, a liar has no more part than a counterfeit bill in a bank deposit."
cali
(114,904 posts)I can think of nothing more to add but the appropriate vomit "smilie"
Crazy making stuff from all 9 members of SCOTUS.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)We're a creative bunch. Let's get to it!!!