but OFFENSIVELY wrong. If a recent press release from (ugh)Jim Bopp's law firm is to be believed, BOTH the Democratic and Republican parties will be represented by the offensive Mr. Bopp in an upcoming case. Per the release:

Today, the Indiana Democratic Party and the Indiana Republican Party asked the Indiana Supreme Court to allow them to file a joint friend-of-the-court brief in a case involving computer-generated political calls. The case, State of Indiana v. American Family Voices, Inc., was initiated by the State of Indiana against American Family Voices and others for using automatic dialing machines to make political calls during the 2006 election cycle. The case was dismissed by the trial court, based on the Defendant’s argument that the statute only prohibited commercial calls. The Attorney General appealed and the case was taken up directly by the Indiana Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals. Appellees are represented by DeLaney & DeLaney, LLC.

Both political parties have a direct interest in the case as they, along with their candidates, would use robocall technology to make political calls, if it were legal. Both political parties believe that the First Amendment protects their right to make computer-generated political calls. The political parties will argue in their friend-of-the-court brief that the Indiana robocall law should be construed to only reach commercial calls, in order to avoid a finding that the statute is unconstitutional because it also prohibits political calls.

According to James Bopp, Jr., counsel for both the Indiana Democratic and Republican Parties in this matter, "the First Amendment and the Indiana Constitution protect all political speech, including computer-generated political calls. The Indiana Supreme Court should interpret the statute to only apply to commercial calls," says Bopp, "leaving intact the robust political arena that the First Amendment was designed to protect."

Excuse me. This is the same Jim Bopp who spends all his time trying to SUBVERT the constitution, to insure that women's reproductive rights--and gays' any kind of rights whatsoever--are denied. What the f*&*k is the Democratic party doing hiring this clown? Leaving aside the questionable basis of the constitutional claim (yes, we all have First Amendment speech rights, but not necessarily the right to express our opinions through any medium, at any time), I find it incredibly offensive that the Democratic party--the party that woos women, that has massive support from the gay community, that prides itself on protecting civil liberties--would hire someone like Bopp to represent it!

WHAT were they thinking!?

Sheila Suess Kennedy's blog | login or register to post comments