Posted on 07/29/2010 8:59:36 AM PDT by freespirited
She's a political appointee and like all political appointees, she serves at the pleasure of the president - or the secretary, in this instance. She has no grounds from which to launch a wrongful termination suit, because all the Secretary or President need to say is that she displeased them.
The only rare exception to this rule is in the case of Inspector Generals, who are legally protected from such retaliatory terminations.
Gerald Walpin begs to differ on that one, even. The courts have become little more than a political tool, where the ends justify the means, and the rule of law is secondary.
She should sue President Bush too. She says that she suffereed 8 long years under that man and was not permitted to say ANY of the things that people are saying about President Obama.
Can Rush sue Wikiquote for publishing manufactured quotes that made him out to be a racist? He was denied the opportunity to bid on an NFL franchise because of that libel.
Media Matters ROUTINELY does this to talk radio hosts and the media echoes their malicious redactions.
“I bet Andrew is laughing so hard!” Me, too. He’s getting tons and tons of publicity.
Legally I don’t think she has a leg to stand on. Imagine if all the networks and newspapers could be sued for selective editing!
I’m not sure how easy it will be for her to get a pro bono lawyer. She has no case. No damages, obviously a public figure, weak argument in that Breitbart posted much more context than he is being given credit for.
Not to mention that her remarks were more incendiary than the RATmedia will acknowledge.
She won't get a lawyer on contingency, but she'll have healthy number of people who will contribute to her legal fund just to make sure she gets to discovery. Leftists would love to rifle through Breitbart's emails and other internal documents.
While I don't think she'd prevail at trial (clearly), I suspect she'd survive defendant's MTD and probably get discovery. This I suspect, is her only real goal.
Who do you think has more to lose in discovery—Andrew Breitbart or Shirley? I would think her.
As for her only real goal, you are more charitable than I am. I suspect it is getting still more money through lawsuits.
I don't see any real downside for her in the the discovery process. Contrary to what you see on television, discovery isn't a open fishing license to subpoena any available record.
OTOH, Sherrod would probably be given some latitude to explore what Breitbart's motivations were, and to uncover what other people he was conversing with immediately prior to and subsequent to his publishing the story, after all , intent is an element of any defamation case.
"I suspect it is getting still more money through lawsuits."
I wouldn't say there's an absence of a profit motive on Sherrod's part, she might look to score a quick buck from Breitbart desire to quickly settle as a nuisance claim. However, as I said, she has virtually no chance of prevailing at trial (or on appeal), and any competent attorney would have told her that. Of course, if she gets generous discovery motions for Brietbart, she'll be the hero for the left, and I'm sure well-compensated by charitable leftist givers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.