Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
Outstanding info that I was not cognizant of... Thanks...

If we can get one more Constitutionalist on the court and have a 6-3 majority (at least protection against another Chief Justice betrayal) the possibilities for a wide range laws, regulations, and unConstitutional prior SCOTUS rulings to be reversed is tantalizing...

6 posted on 04/23/2020 5:23:48 PM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is Sam Adams now that we desperately need him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


Bump


7 posted on 04/23/2020 6:12:56 PM PDT by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: SuperLuminal
Some Republican official must sue for libel in the teeth of Sullivan.
Outstanding info that I was not cognizant of…

If we can get one more Constitutionalist on the court and have a 6-3 majority (at least protection against another Chief Justice betrayal) the possibilities for a wide range laws, regulations, and unConstitutional prior SCOTUS rulings to be reversed is tantalizing…

Obviously that “6-3” majority has been in place for a bit now.

IMHO the issue would be how to craft a remedy which would be hard to criticize effectively.
Because the SCOTUS majority is obviously in a delicate position.

It would seem that SCOTUS needs a way to defang Sullivan without explicitly overturning it. For example, there should be some way of making the standard of proof of “actual malice” very easy to meet. Especially, I would say, WRT the wire services and the membership of the AP, which has systematically functioned as a way of “passing the buck” and diluting responsibility among so many entities as to make “responsibility” a quaint concept.

Which is why I assert that the libel suit SCOTUS gets must name “the Associated Press and each of its members, joint and several liability” as defendants. Fox News would easily slip that noose because it has been systematically critical of “the media.”

Defanging Sullivan would, however, not affect the “the dog that didn’t bark” issue. I don’t see how you can sue someone for not reporting, say, the Jussie Smollette verdict as emphatically as they reported Mr. Smollette’s slanderous attack on Republicans. I say, “Republicans,” because any member of a minority who dares confront the lies of “the media” instantly becomes an “honorary” Republican. And white people who are Democrats are treated as if “white” were not a pejorative as it pertains to them.


32 posted on 12/11/2021 6:02:11 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (A jury represents society. It presumes the innocence of anyone the government undertakes to punish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson