Posted on 04/18/2009 7:56:52 PM PDT by Sinschild
Two days ago, a federal appeals court threw out a lawsuit against Rep. John P. Murtha on the grounds that because he was acting in his capacity as a Member of Congress when he said -- incorrectly -- that U.S. Marines in Iraq had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood," he could not be sued for libel or defamation.
Specifically, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia cited a 1988 law that protects federal employees from being sued for things they say or do in the course of their official duties.
And that, apparently, was the end of former Marine Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich's claim that Murtha had libeled and defamed him when Murtha made those sensational charges in May of 2006.
But it turns out that ruling is NOT the end of a similar lawsuit filed by former Marine Lance Corporal Justin Sharrat of Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
Sharrat's lawyer, Noah Geary, has amended Sharrat's lawsuit against Murtha to make clear Sharrat's belief that Murtha was acting outside the scope of his duties as a Member of Congress when he defamed and libeled Sharrat.
Geary's argument is elegant: At the time he made the offensive comments, Murtha -- a member of the legislative branch of government -- was commenting on an ongoing investigation being conducted by the executive branch of government.
Because commenting on executive branch investigations before they are concluded is not part of the job description of a Congressman, Geary reasons, Murtha's comments should not be protected.
Further, argues Geary, Murtha was really acting in a personal capacity, for his own personal reasons, when he made the sensational allegations -- he was seeking to curry personal favor with U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was just months away from being elected Speaker of the House of Representatives.
A military court cleared Sharrat some time ago of the charges against him.
Murtha never apologized for his original comments.
Is it any wonder that -- to conservatives, at least -- Murtha has become one of the most disgust-inducing politicians in America?
“....in the course of their official duties”
Bah......
The Court erred.
Rotsa Ruck.
However I believe the courts will punt the question of what is or isn’t within the rights of a congressbeast to bloviate about while on the floor. Shoot, during filibusters they can read the phone book aloud.
I remember a political cartoon from about 45 years ago..
A Politician hides behind a shield of legal protection while painting a person with a brush of libel.
He may not get his just reward in this world, but I sure hope there’s a really toasty spot for him in the next.
He will be re-elected by the fools in his district because they want...no...they need other people’s money to survive. Way to go Pennsylvania!
No they didn't, they found a way to protect one of their own by using an intentional misinterpretation of the law to get the case dismissed. Our country is totally corrupted and morally bankrupt. There is no America anymore, the Democratic party has seen to that.
Exactly. Murtha’s smears had absolutely nothing to do with his official duties. But because he’s an influential congressman, and because DC relies on congress for dough, and because DC judges are almost all corrupt, the court pretended that it did.
They know better. But who’s going to call them on it?
>Again, Congresscritters occupy Constitutional offices. They are NOT employees.
>The Court erred.
Hmmm... maybe we can turn this to our advantage; I’d love to fire him.
>I remember a political cartoon from about 45 years ago..
>
>A Politician hides behind a shield of legal protection while painting a person with a brush of libel.
WOW - That’s incredibly relevant and incredibly accurate too!
It looks like it’s up to the knuckleheads who kept voting him in to vote him out...as if that’s likely to happen!
Can’t he get Swiftboated or sumpin?
Only us powerless sheep. We're harmless peons to them because we work and take care of our families and politically we're inert. But still, they'd feel better if they could take away all our guns. If they can totally disarm the population, then they don't have to worry about anybody getting any wild ideas about them going too far. Wow, I wonder how far they'll go once they've finally disarmed us and have no fear.
By the way, any one else notice that when the libs take over the Presidency nowadays they immediatley start making noise about "hate groups". Then they send out agencies, which start confrontations that result in members of the "hate groups" being killed. Anyone else notice that it's never the "hate groups" that initiate these confrontations?
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.