Posted on 08/29/2017 12:12:47 PM PDT by GIdget2004
A federal judge dismissed Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times on Tuesday, according to multiple media reports.
Palin sued The Times for defamation after an editorial in the newspaper on mass shootings tied an ad run by the former vice presidential nominee to the 2011 shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (R-Az.).
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
To quote Savage, “The judge is a Red diaper doper baby.”
I am confident that Gov Palin will appeal the case and win. She will take over the NYT and show us how a newspaper should be run. She is a qualified journalist.
Sorry, shot my TV about 1973 so miss some references....
Y’all really don’t want us voting from the rooftops...... But keep it up.
I think it is Jake-off.
Precedent means that the law is predictable, which is essential to a free-market economy.
Every day, business people go to lawyers and ask, "is it legal to do X?" Without precedent, no one could get a reliable answer, and the economy would be seriously undermined.
Take one tiny example: Would you ever hire an employee if there were no binding precedent on when it is legal to fire that employee, and your only option was to fire someone without knowing whether a jury would decide after the fact if you owed damages?
Once again, a federal judge puts his thumbs to his ears, sticks his tongue out while flapping his hands, and says “Neener-neener-neeeeener!” to us.
Too late now; it's been dismissed with prejudice. She can appeal this dismissal, but can't start a new suit somewhere else.
She probably didn't sue in Alaska, because the Times could have forced the suit into federal court, and Alaska is in the 9th Circuit.
Ever remember the old saying that, “Not guilty is not always the same as innocent?”
Sure, the case was dismissed but the NYT shouldn’t be dancing in the isles. Having them go on the record as “incompitant” is not exactly a warm fuzzy.
Witnessed a case here in Omaha which had a quasi similar feel to it. A certain communications company admitted they “goofed” on a press release which put a client in a bad light. Judge ruled it was an “honest mistake” but the CEO came off as a total boob. Investors left, bad vibes with contemporaries, and the company took a major hit (CEO got ousted 30 days later). They “won” the case but it certainly didn’t feel like a victory.
June 2017
NYT lays off staff (slow grind to dust)
(going on for the past few years)
http://nypost.com/2017/06/23/new-york-times-bloodbath-could-include-reporter-jobs/
Unbelievable
I probably didn’t make myself clear, but I specifically prefaced my comment with, “in this context”, in which I was referring to legal mechanics, and the appeal process relative to this specific type of case. Individual judges have way too much power, and can use ridiculous nuance to throw out a case - like this one. The intent of the law is ‘justice’. The mechanics of the law too often preclude justice.
I stand by my comment about rethinking precedence. I’m not saying throw out all case law, but perpetuating a bad decision by a judge, just because that decision is ‘in the books’, is perpetuating bad law. There need to be better ways to challenge existing case law, and we also need a ‘quality control’ mechanism for judges (particularly federal judges) that reviews their decisions and ‘judges’ their competency. This would help to quell the overreach of activist judges, which has become a huge cancer in our legal system.
Regarding the example of business people asking lawyers ‘is it legal to do X?’, in many cases this is because the laws are poorly written, and thus interpretation is confusing. Just because there’s an opinion on the books that sets precedence for the interpretation of that law doesn’t mean it was the correct opinion in the first place.
Regarding the employment law example you gave, I understand your point, but the reality is that individual employment law cases more often than not turn on the emotional reactions of a jury, or the fallible decisions of a judge. Whether or not an employee plaintiff, or the employer get justice is highly variable, and the outcome could be entirely different depending upon who the judge is and who the attorneys are - irrespective of who was actually damaged. Further, for employment cases that wind up in federal court, federal judges can very easily overturn or diminish damages given by a jury. That’s too much power for a judge.
Anyway, thanks for your input.
Impeach Jed Rakoff.
Yes a total sphincter pucker.
Debench the idiot and run him out on a rail , post tar and feathers!
Is it time to change the definition of the term “hanging judge”?
British slander laws are very favorable to the plaintiffs. It’s a popular route for celebrities, but there is really nothing that makes Britain an appropriate venue. And I’m pretty sure that even under foreign law, a refilling would be barred by the dismissal of this case.
What’s unbelievable is that it took 26 pages to give Sarah the judicial finger. What a system.
The legal system of this country is entirely corrupt and needs to be turned upside down.
If we had an AG worth the name and not a corrupt traitor his second act ( after announcing the arrest of Hillary Clinton) would have been to suspend all the corrupt Marxists masquerading as justices throughout this country !
Justice can never be served by corrupt executioners
“The story omits the judge’s name.”
I guess they don’t want us knowing its a democrat political hack
I am accusing you because you call the Palin case “frivolous”. From a legal POV you may be correct, but from the damage MSM is doing to our society YOU ARE WRONG!
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.