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 ...
The name’s Red. Red Jakoff.
I don’t care that this judge was a Democrat appointee. Read New York Times v. Sullivan and explain to me how any public figure wins against a media outlet regardless of the judge.
Rakoff, rhymes with ...
That wasn't a mistake. It was deliberately done to hurt Palin, and that's the difference.
I assume she'll appeal and this was probably not unexpected.
Didn't think this would go anyplace to start with.
I thought actual malice applied to libel cases only, not defamation. I was wrong. But even if it didn’t the chances of a high-profile conservative winning against the NYT these days would be zero to none IMO.
The left tried to destroy that woman minutes after accepting the VP candidacy and it has never stopped. The whole “cross hairs” thing was ALL on the left especially Moveon.org. The left are the scum who targeted (cross hairs) Rep. Giffords leading to the horrific murders and maiming by a freak leftist.
Bingo. If it was a lib, this would be discussed as a frivolous case.
Anyone who believes politics doesn’t enter the judiciary is a moron. Rule of Law and the Constitution no longer matters.
No. This should either go to a jury trial or be settled out of court. Justice has not been served.
The media can not be allowed to destroy people’s reputations at will (even though they do it all the time) without knowing they can be held liable.
The NY Slimes should just pay Sarah $10 Million with a contract of silence on the details of the settlement.
Let’s put all the anger and vitriol aside.
The court of appeals can easily reverse this decision, as it was very wrong and “early.”
As just one example, the ruling found fault in the Complaint in that Plain did not name specific person as the one who made the decision to defame her. Ms. Palin did not sit in on the editorial meetings that approved the libelous writing, so there was no way she could have known. It was also information obtainable on Discovery.
Secondly, in a greater sense, the judge has sent himself as the Trier of Fact. He is not. The judge is the Trier of Law, the jury is the Trier of Fact.
This case should, and will, go to a jury.
” Judge Jed S. Rakoff of Federal District Court in Manhattan said in his ruling. “Negligence this may be; but defamation of a public figure it plainly is not.”
From the article in the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/business/media/sarah-palin-lawsuit-new-york-times.html
[Our justice system is starting to look like a joke.]
I think we’re beyond “starting” and into “banana republic”.
Doesn’t seem to make much difference if Bill, W or Obama appointed many of them. They’re all leftist dweebs.
[STARTING?!?!?!]
To my post above this one.....
You know you’ve got trouble if Rolling Stone approves ..... Now all we need is Mother Jones’ input....
Judge Jed Rakoff is a Bill Clinton appointee. What more could you expect?
Evidently did get a good draw on a judge.
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.