[airborne]

My 20th anniversary is the 29th of this month.

People like Grampa Dave and SamAdams76 really busted my b@lls when I first joined.

Now I wouldn’t know what to do without FreeRepublic!

[Grampa Dave]

Happy Anniversary and thanks for joining FR.

[SnuffaBolshevik]

"My 20th anniversary is the 29th of this month."

Mine's in December. Joined during that Bush v. Gore debacle.

I thought that was bad but the coming months are going to make that look like child's play, I'm afraid.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

My 20th anniversary is the 29th of this month.

Yeah, I looked forward to mine in February of last year - then when it came, I realized that the congratulations did not belong to me but to Jim Robinson and FR for being the go-to place for sanity in an insane political world.

FR was my lifeline when I was minding my Mother who, fading away with Alzheimer’s, mostly just sat around.

Speaking of insanity, IMHO it always existed in politics but really received license from the government in 1964 when the Warren Court unanimously(!) held in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that

". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”

That position is simultaneously both impossible to argue with, and indefensible.

Who doesn’t love himself some freedom of the press??? Mark Steyn is an exemplar of a public figure who would defend Sullivan. Rush Limbaugh, ditto.

And yet Sullivan is in fact directly in conflict with the

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

. . . which says that if the Constitution doesn’t explicitly "deny or disparage” a right which existed in 1788, all the handwaving in the world is insufficient to vindicate an argument against that right.

And the right to sue for libel certainly did exist in 1788. a href="https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/2016/02/16/justice-scalia-the-45-words-and-original-meaning-of-the-first-amendment/">As Antonin Scalia put it, the Supreme Court, under Justice Earl Warren, “… simply decided, ‘Yes, it used to be that … George Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don’t think that’s a good idea anymore.’”

Think what would happen to “the media” (which is IMHO terrible nomenclature) if Sullivan were overturned! Republican politicians (and Justice Kavanaugh, BTW), would positively own them.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exod 20: 16

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I looked forward to my 20th FREEPERversary in February of last year - then when it came, I realized that the congratulations did not belong to me but to Jim Robinson and FR for being the go-to place for sanity in an insane political world.

FR was my lifeline when I was minding my Mother who, fading away with Alzheimer’s, mostly just sat around.

Speaking of insanity, IMHO it always existed in politics but really received license from the government in 1964 when the Warren Court unanimously(!) held in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that

". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”

That position is simultaneously both impossible to argue with, and indefensible.

Who doesn’t love himself some freedom of the press???
Mark Steyn is an exemplar of a public figure who would defend Sullivan.
Rush Limbaugh, ditto.

And yet Sullivan is in fact directly in conflict with

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

. . . which says that if the Constitution doesn’t explicitly "deny or disparage” a right which existed in 1788, all the handwaving in the world cannot suffice to vindicate an argument against that right.

And the right of people - “public figures” or no - to sue for libel certainly did exist in 1788. As Antonin Scalia put it in a 2016 speech,

the Supreme Court, under Justice Earl Warren, “… simply decided,‘Yes, it used to be that … George Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don’t think that’s a good idea anymore.’”

Think what would happen to “the media” if Sullivan were overturned!
Republican politicians (and Justice Kavanaugh, BTW), would positively own them.

And

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exodus 20:16

rightly so.