You said...
“The “state level” is the level it should be enforced at & Trump knows this. Trump was not endorsing passinf legislation at the “State/federal” level. If you had bothered to listen carefully to what Trump says, not just one event speech, but listen to many as there is only so much time in any given event, what Trump wants to do is restore the way it was BEFORE the SCOTUS stepped in where it ought not have. Libel is not to be litigated in federal courts, it is a “state” issue!!!”
Ok, so you’re ok with the courts enforcing a responsible press?
Had Hillary said the exact same thing Trump said, you’d be opposing this. This seems to be the case with alot of Trump’s statements and position according to his supporters. Put them in Hillary’s mouth and they become bad
This isn’t about libel. This is about politicians suing any publication they “believe” libeled them. And using that to shut down and intimidate opposition. Your position is, “well, if what they printed is true about said politician they’ll win.” But who wants to fight the resources of the government.Let’s say a President Trump reads something in the NYT that he doesn’t believe is true? This is how a politician can use opening up libel laws to intimidate. Which BTW, is what Trump is doing. And I heard what he said. It was an attempt to intimidate
Read the link about what happened to “Free Dominion” and decide if this is a good idea. And pretend Harry Reid said what Trump did and how you’d feel
I am for the courts UPHOLDING the law. What part of this do you not understand?