Posted on 01/20/2014 2:43:58 PM PST by Lorianne
The story of Davis' unusual lawsuit was recounted by the San Antonio Express News Monday. The blog Sara for America has highlights:
Davis said in her lawsuit that the newspaper ran “a series of contrived and false news stories and editorials…with malicious intent.”
The lawsuit said “defamatory and libelous” remarks were made to inflict emotional distress and to deny her rights to free speech, assembly and association.
It said that “Davis has suffered and is continuing to suffer damages to her mental health, her physical health, her right to pursue public offices in the past and in the future, and to her legal career.” She sought unspecified damages, including “significant exemplary damages.”
According to National Review's Andrew Stiles, "The suit...was quickly dismissed by a district-court judge, who sustained all of the defendants’ objections, largely on the grounds that Davis had failed to present legitimate evidence to support her libel claim." She appealed it all the way to the Texas Supreme Court, losing at every turn.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Looser pays - end of stupid law suits.
Annnd she lied again. From the KSAT story
” And I knew then that I was going to have to work my way up and out of that life if I was going to give my daughter a better life and a better future and that’s what I’ve done,” “
Who knew that finding a man 13 years older to support her & her child (whom she abandoned with her second husband) was “work”? Well, maybe “working her way up” as she put it. Some girls have been known to put it that way.
She’s not a very bright lawyer. She should know that in order for a “public figure” to win at libel or slander they have to prove malice aforethought. It’s hard to get over that hurdle when you’re a politician trying to sue a “legitimate” news source that is known as being very liberal in it’s opinions.
I think she would have had a better case against the washington post or the new york times.
> According to National Review’s Andrew Stiles, “The suit...was quickly dismissed by a district-court judge, who sustained all of the defendants’ objections, largely on the grounds that Davis had failed to present legitimate evidence to support her libel claim.” She appealed it all the way to the Texas Supreme Court, losing at every turn.
Thanks Lorianne.
Obviously looking for another get rich quick scheme after milking her former husband for all he was worth.
She’s a parasite.
Oops. So I type like I speak anymore. A bummer. :) thx.
Being a liberal, one has to wonder what she used as a baseline to determine her loss of mental health.
LOL! Terrell!
Well, marrying for money is hardly a new thing.
Example, John Kerry.
Also, leaving one’s spouse after they’ve helped put you through medical or law school is hardly a new thing. Lots of men have done the same.
I don’t care for Wendy Davis but let’s not fall into the sexist double standards that the left put Palin through (eg Why isn’t she home taking care of her children?)
Nice rack - which boyfriend picked up the tab for those?
That’s certainly true, but comparing Sarah to Windy Davis would be apples & oranges, imho. (the Palin family remains intact & apparently quite healthy, and the Governor kept/ keeps her children close by. They would have remained close by even if McCain/ Palin had been elected)
This woman is as slick & sleazy as Bill Clinton ever thought about being. She just happens to be a “she”.
I confess that I am about as unashamedly anti-feminist as they come. Both my mom (who worked/ parents divorced) & my grandmother (who cared for me while she did) thought the whole feminism thing was hysterical. It’s not funny anymore. If that makes me sexist, oh well. (BTW the “K” is for Kari. Ms Davis is not my “sister”.)
“... has suffered and is continuing to suffer damages to her mental health, ...”
Seems like she shouldn’t be able to own a gun ... by self admission she is mentally unhealthy (in fact, in CA they would be kicking down her door and ransacking her house to take away any guns located there.
I’m not comparing the two women to each other. I’m comparing how each side of politics is not above using double standards in judging ambitious women (compared to ambitious men).
If you are an ambitious man or woman and you work to gain a high level in politics or in business, you are not going to be spending as much time w/ your kids as less ambitious people. That’s just a fact. There are still only 24 hours in a day.
If you are ambitious, it’s good to have mate who will spend more time with the family. It appears the Palins had that worked out. The Davises did too.
I don’t want to play tit for tat with sexist accusations against women in politics based on whether they are Dem or Republican. Either way, they had to make family time sacrifices to get where they got. That’s just the way it is.
I must be having a blonde moment because I don’t get where the double standard comes into play.
That is exactly true that family sacrifices are made by ambitious women. There are social (or societal- I’m not sure which is correct) sacrifices as well. We’re all living them.
It’s probably sexist of me to believe that women who choose ambition should not subject their children to the sacrifices required (frankly, or to the husbands either, but at least the husbands have a choice. Children do not & that’s not fair to them. Mom can “have it all”. Tough luck for the kids, though.) Of course, everybody’s mileage varies.
Hearing about this, it’s not too surprising that Ms Davis is such a zealous proponent of abortion. If kids are an inconvenience/ impediment to a person’s ambition, just get rid of them.
It is the way it is & it’s a damned shame.
Since kids need the participation of both parents, it’s tough luck for kids when one parent is not around much. This is a trade off many ambitious people have made ... less time for the kids but more money (or political power/prestige).
You’re right, the kids don’t get a say, except when they get older and never let it be forgotten that they felt neglected by one parent (or sometimes both).
I don’t think it’s a good game plan to criticize Wendy Davis for being politically ambitious and sacrificing time with her kids just because she is a Democrat and one perhaps doesn’t agree with her politics (which I don’t). To do that and not be hypocritical one would have to criticize all politically ambitious people who sacrificed time with their kids to climb the political ladder (and they all did, it’s just a fact that it takes loads of time to make it to the top).
You can take the kids along with you, but you’re still not giving them as much attention as a person with a normal job and hours.
I guess I’m saying I wouldn’t pick that aspect to criticize Davis on because it’s not logical to single her out among politicians. Plus, there are much better things, politically, to find fault with.
Since kids need the participation of both parents, it’s tough luck for kids when one parent is not around much. This is a trade off many ambitious people have made ... less time for the kids but more money (or political power/prestige).
You’re right, the kids don’t get a say, except when they get older and never let it be forgotten that they felt neglected by one parent (or sometimes both).
I don’t think it’s a good game plan to criticize Wendy Davis for being politically ambitious and sacrificing time with her kids just because she is a Democrat and one perhaps doesn’t agree with her politics (which I don’t). To do that and not be hypocritical one would have to criticize all politically ambitious people who sacrificed time with their kids to climb the political ladder (and they all did, it’s just a fact that it takes loads of time to make it to the top).
You can take the kids along with you, but you’re still not giving them as much attention as a person with a normal job and hours.
I guess I’m saying I wouldn’t pick that aspect to criticize Davis on because it’s not logical to single her out among politicians. Plus, there are much better things, politically, to find fault with.
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.