|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
Court backs ruling against congressman
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Candidate
|
| Contributor | The Sunset Provision |
| Last Edited | The Sunset Provision Dec 03, 2007 11:35am |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | News |
| Media | Website - Yahoo News |
| News Date | Monday, December 3, 2007 05:00:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | The long legal fight between two members of Congress over an illegally taped telephone call ended Monday when the Supreme Court refused to review the case.
The court left in place a federal appeals court ruling that Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., acted improperly in giving reporters access to a recording of a 1996 telephone call of Republican leaders discussing the House ethics case against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
McDermott asked the justices to hear his appeal of the May ruling, which he said infringed on his free speech rights. The court did not comment on its action.
The decision upholds a previous court ruling ordering McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, more than $800,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $800,000 in legal costs for Boehner, who filed suit against McDermott nearly a decade ago.
McDermott has created a legal defense fund to pay his expenses in the case. The exact amount he owes is the subject of a separate dispute being heard in federal court.
Boehner's lawyer, Michael Carvin, said he was gratified at the court's decision, which he said vindicated Boehner's contention that McDermott "had no First Amendment right to disclose someone else's stolen speech."
Boehner also was glad the case was over after so many years, Carvin said.
McDermott said in a statement that he was disappointed the high court declined to review the case, but said he was proud of his actions.
"I knew when I asked the Supreme Court to review this case that the odds were against me," he said. "Nonetheless, I thought that the constitutional principles presented — the First Amendment protection of truthful speech and the separation of powers doctrine — warranted the court's attention. I pursued this case based on my belief in the people's right to know, and I continue to believe it was my sworn responsibility to vigorously defend that right."
The U.S. Ci |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
