Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court allows pro-life group to challenge Ohio ban on campaign false statements
FoxNews.com ^ | 16- June-2014 | FoxNews.com

Posted on 06/16/2014 8:38:21 AM PDT by topher

he Supreme Court delivered a major victory on Monday to an anti-abortion group that sought to challenge an Ohio law that bans campaign statements deemed to be false.

The justices, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the Susan B. Anthony List can go ahead with a lawsuit challenging the law as a violation of free-speech rights.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: abortion; achillwind; censorship; driehaus; freespeech; ohio; partisanwitchhunt; prolife; scotus; shallmakenolaw; susanbanthony
Unanimous Decision
1 posted on 06/16/2014 8:38:21 AM PDT by topher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: topher

Who does the “deeming”?


2 posted on 06/16/2014 8:39:23 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("If you’re litigating against nuns, you’ve probably done something wrong."-Ted Cruz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Time to take DemonRat (Democrat) Steve Driehaus to the cleaners with the lawsuit...


3 posted on 06/16/2014 8:39:38 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

“false” according to whom?


4 posted on 06/16/2014 8:39:59 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

It shouldn’t even be a QUESTION. Political speech is PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.


5 posted on 06/16/2014 8:41:25 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
That is the whole point of the Supreme Court decision: this is free speech. Therefore, no one can deem that "Susan B. Anthony" made false statements.

They have thrown the Ohio law out as against free speech...

6 posted on 06/16/2014 8:41:40 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
The whom that decided it was false was quite arbitrary.

Ohio ruled against Susan B. Anthony saying they made false statements.

This is why the Supreme Court made a unanimous decision to strike down the Ohio law: it violated free speech rights.

As we used to say on Freerepublic at one time, this is HUGH (huge).

7 posted on 06/16/2014 8:44:18 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
Hence this was a no-brainer for SCOTUS -- both liberals and conservatives agreed this was a violation of Free Speech.

Rarely do you get such a unanimous decision from SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States).

8 posted on 06/16/2014 8:45:47 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: topher

I’m surprised Roberts didn’t call it a tax.


9 posted on 06/16/2014 8:49:02 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg ("Compromise" means you've already decided you lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
Too soon for SCOTUSBLOG.com to have any comments. I imagine someone is frantically work on some comments on this opinion (or not so frantically).
10 posted on 06/16/2014 8:49:25 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
That is the whole point of the Supreme Court decision: this is free speech. Therefore, no one can deem that "Susan B. Anthony" made false statements.

They have thrown the Ohio law out as against free speech...

The U.S. Supreme Court did no such thing. The Court decided plaintiffs have provided enough evidence to continue with their lawsuit against the Ohio law & remanded the case.

The final word on whether the law itself is constitutional is still years away.

In other words, this was a case/decision about the legal standing of the plaintiffs, not the underlying law.

11 posted on 06/16/2014 8:50:43 AM PDT by gdani (Every day, your Govt surveils you more than the day before)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: topher
Link to PDF of decision on SupremeCourt.gov

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-193_omq2.pdf

12 posted on 06/16/2014 8:57:45 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

13 posted on 06/16/2014 9:05:07 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

+1


14 posted on 06/16/2014 9:18:02 AM PDT by Principled (Obama: Unblemished by success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
It shouldn’t even be a QUESTION. Political speech is PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT

If the "political speech" is demonstrably false, why don't politicians simply bring a lawsuit against the perpetrator? It would only take a few victories in court before all political campaigns straightened out/up.

15 posted on 06/16/2014 9:18:09 AM PDT by Go Gordon (Barack McGreevey Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: topher

Um - Obamacare DOES use taxpayer money for abortions.

Global Warming has been deemed true by our government.


16 posted on 06/16/2014 9:34:11 AM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Pro life victory!


17 posted on 06/16/2014 9:47:14 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Any 2nd Amendment/gun rights/concealed carry cases before SCOTUS?


18 posted on 06/16/2014 10:07:07 AM PDT by DCBryan1 (No realli, moose bytes can be quite nasti!! (Keeper of the Sick Individuals pinglist))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: topher

Before we Pro-Life folks get too excited by this ruling, be advised this is both complex AND dual-edged.


19 posted on 06/16/2014 10:12:17 AM PDT by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

Nope. 14 more decisions are due before the end of June, but none of 2A significance.


20 posted on 06/16/2014 10:36:37 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: topher
This is what SCOTUS ruled:

Petitioners in this case have demonstrated an injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a determination whether the remaining Article III standing requirements are met.

So this case continues for now. Hopefully, Susan B. Anthony List will ultimately be successful. I'm also very happy that this was a unanimous decision, but that does not mean that the Liberal Justices would rule correctly on the merits of this case (the free speech issue).

21 posted on 06/16/2014 12:17:35 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: topher

This will annoy Reid, Schumer, and Markey.


22 posted on 06/16/2014 12:22:19 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1; BuckeyeTexan
There was a ruling today on third party Gun Issues:

The decision is:

Abramski v. United States

Scotusblog.com has an article on it:

Opinion analysis: No stand-in gun buyers allowed

23 posted on 06/16/2014 12:46:46 PM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: topher; DCBryan1

Correct, but Abramski did not present questions under 2A. The legal questions presented were:

1. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a firearm to another lawful buyer in the future a fact “material to the lawfulness of the sale” of the firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)?

2. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a firearm to another lawful buyer in the future a piece of information “required ... to be kept” by a federally licensed firearm dealer under § 924(a)(I)(A).


24 posted on 06/16/2014 12:59:55 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: topher

This of course is a good decision.

The Attorney General declined to defend
the law; so it stands, right?

(CA Prop 8)

SCOTUS picking and choosing rationales?

(NOT saying the OH law is good!)


25 posted on 06/16/2014 1:21:19 PM PDT by WKTimpco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
SCOTUS Blog.com has caught up and posted an article on this:

Opinion analysis: False politicking law open to challenge

26 posted on 06/17/2014 8:13:24 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WKTimpco
The law is not overturned at this point (my mistake).

What SCOTUS ruled was that the Susan B. Anthony List could sue former Rep. Steve Driehaus.

The Court of Appeals prevented the lawsuit, but SCOTUS has sent a CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT allowing the lawsuit.

My understanding of Certiorari, in legal terms, it is an order from a higher court to a lower court.

In this case, SCOTUS is saying that the lawsuit against former Democratic Congressman Steve Driehaus is allowed.

However, the SCOTUS BLOG.com article seems to say that the Ohio law might eventually be overturned...

27 posted on 06/17/2014 8:19:38 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: topher; Dr. Sivana; yldstrk; SoFloFreeper; Colonel_Flagg; gdani; BuckeyeTexan; Principled; ...
SCOTUS Blog.com has posted the following article (opinion) on this:

Opinion analysis: False politicking law open to challenge

28 posted on 06/17/2014 8:26:31 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Exactly the problem with this sort of law.


29 posted on 06/17/2014 5:34:56 PM PDT by The Unknown Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon
If the "political speech" is demonstrably false, why don't politicians simply bring a lawsuit against the perpetrator? It would only take a few victories in court before all political campaigns straightened out/up.

It isn't that easy. Most of the liberal politicians who lie through their teeth in campaigns would be quick to accuse their opponents of lying. This is because by the time their opponents would be able to prove they weren't lying, the campaign would be over with a landslide victory for the liberal. This isn't about truthfulness in advertising, it's about shutting up political opponents.

30 posted on 06/18/2014 3:26:49 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: topher
The justices, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the Susan B. Anthony List can go ahead with a lawsuit challenging the law as a violation of free-speech rights.

So the court ruled that the Susan B. Anthony List has the right to lie on campaign commercials on the grounds of free speech?

Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas cited concerns about the chilling effect on groups wishing to run political ads.

Yeah why run ads if you have to make sure they're factually correct first? I suppose if the court had gone the other way it would have basically banned all political advertisements, and we can't have that.

31 posted on 06/18/2014 3:45:11 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

The trouble is that issues presented in political ads are often not black and white. Suppose for instance that Congress was considering a bill that would have raised taxes by 300% on all Americans. At the last minute, an amendment was added that would provide funding to veterans for medical care. Now let’s say that Congressman Butthead voted against this bill.

Now Congressman Butthead’s opponent runs an ad stating that Congressman Butthead doesn’t care about our troops — he voted against a bill that would have provided funding for medical care for the troops. Is that a lie? It’s certainly technically true. Congressman Butthead did vote against the bill in question. However, it certainly is misleading. Who gets to decide whether such an ad is a lie or not? Isn’t it better just to keep the First Amendment working as it was intended to and allow Congressman Butthead to run his own ad telling why he voted against this bill?


32 posted on 06/20/2014 9:52:03 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: topher

Ohio supreme court is 100% republican.


33 posted on 06/23/2014 3:01:30 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson