Posted on 10/17/2018 12:37:56 PM PDT by detective
The controversy over Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court didn’t end when he was sworn in. Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations will haunt Kavanaugh for the rest of his career. Critics say his elevation to the court will cast a shadow of illegitimacy over the institution for years to come. This is why Kavanaugh should consider suing Ford for defamation now: Not to retaliate or seek damages, but in the public’s interest. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s proceedings involving Ford’s accusations left many observers unsure what to think. Also, a defamation case would give both Kavanaugh and Ford access to judicial procedures—document requests, interrogatories, subpoenas, depositions, location inspections—for discovering the truth.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
I think his wife and children should sue her and Feinswein for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Hey, did you see the dismissal of Stormy Daniel’s defamation lawsuit against Trump all over the MSM?
Neither did I.
If Kavenaugh wins this type of lawsuit, the average person won’t hear a thing about it. There is no way to get your reputation back against MSM lies.
he needs to but he wont
I disagree with not suing for damages. A multi-million dollar damage settlement in favor of Justice Kavanaugh would send a message to all other lying dems to beware of being destitute for lying plus seeing Ford lose all that free money would be bonus.
Lying of this magnitude should have serious consequences.
File a suit and immediately lock down all her assets.
Unless, of course, some of the allegations are true or partly true or similar allegations are true.
Then, it would be better to just let sleeping dogs lie.
No Ford lost, Brett won so as the Dims said Game Over.
Is there a way for US to sue her? It was OUR Supreme Court she defamed.
Sometimes its best just to live your life, you only get one.
A Supreme Court justice has a heavy workload.
Better 330 million people get justice than just one.
Christians are told to turn the other cheek for a reason.
https://www.gotquestions.org/turn-other-cheek.html
If you are a company trying to get a drug approved by the FDA, would you want Christine Ford on your research team?
No, he won’t.
Ugh, have been looking around at local TX sites and it’s concerning how many were traumatized over just a picture of Kavanaugh. “Oooh, he looks just like my mean ex!” “Oooh, I didn’t bother watching the hearing but can tell what I need to know just looking at his scary picture.”
Here’s to them not bothering to vote because they’re likely Beto leaning. Far too many CA imports and uber lib Austin snowflakes.
That’s right. She had no proof. Democrats immediately branded him as a rapist. They continue to do so. Cause for a big lawsuit. He won’t sue.
Where would he be able to sue?
Maryland? DC? California?
All are heavily Democratic.
“If Kavenaugh wins this type of lawsuit, the average person won’t hear a thing about it. There is no way to get your reputation back against MSM lies.”
The left wants to destroy the SC, by defaming its judges (Kavanaugh and Thomas), by promoting the idea of increasing the number of judges... It’s high time to stop it and defending Kavanaugh’s honor is the very first step.
Suggestions that he will be "haunted" by accusations for the rest of his life is speculation, and defamation will need actual damages. Kavanaugh is seated for life; it will be hard to show damages after that.
Now, Mark Judge is a different story. He's a recovering alcoholic. He was placed in the room as an accessory to the crime. He was thrust into the unwanted spotlight when all he wanted to was to recover in private.
Judge may have a case against Ford, but Kavanaugh should let it go.
-PJ
Yes, he should sue for damages and donate any award to a charity that helps actual sex abuse victims.
Imagine what her emails look like before during and after?
He should wait 1 year and 364 1/2 days, then....just as her feeling of elation is peaking...DROP THE HAMMER.
Neither did I.
If Kavenaugh wins this type of lawsuit, the average person won’t hear a thing about it. There is no way to get your reputation back against MSM lies.
. . . which simply illustrates why any suit of the sort must name “the MSM” as a defendant. How do you name “the MSM?” Simply specify “the Associated Press and its members individually. You justify that by pointing out that, as Adam Smith pointed out in 1776 in Wealth of Nations,People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.That is, if the members of the Associated Press meet together a very great deal for a very long time, you have to be "naive as a babe to believe” that they do not conspire against the public. And the AP “wire” is a virtual meeting of all members of the AP which has been in continuous operation since before the Civil War. People with that much opportunity are bound to find a motive - and I put it to you that the motive of journalism is to attract attention and to be influential and be considered objective and important.Famous rules of journalism such as “If it bleeds, it leads,” and “‘Man Bites Dog,’ not ‘Dog Bites Man’” suffice to attract attention, but they do not make journalism objective - they simply make journalism negative. And anyone who thinks that “negativity is objectivity” is a cynic. I put it to you that the “conspiracy against the public” implemented by the AP (and other wire services, which are organized differently but which also homogenize journalism) lies in the fact that it constitutes a massive propaganda campaign to the effect that journalism is objective.
But since the claim that journalism is objective is de facto a claim that negativity is objectivity, “the MSM” conducts a massive propaganda campaign of cynicism. Cynicism directed at society, and not at government. In fact, since government exists to control evil in society, cynicism towards society is naiveté towards government. As Paine pointed out,
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . - , Common Sense (1776)Democrats go along and get along with “the MSM,” whereas the public needs - and Republicans inadequately (for the most part) deliver - defense from the pro-socialist, anti constitutional, propaganda of the MSM.The 1964 NY Times v. Sullivan decision made it difficult for public figures to sue for libel, on the basis that competition among journalists would sort that sort of thing out. But the fact that that standard applies to Democrat as well as Republican public figures is “fair” in precisely the same sense that a law against sleeping under bridges applies to rich people just as much as to poor people. SCOTUS must overturn NY Times v. Sullivan, and hold the AP to be in violation of the Sherman AntiTrust Act.
The AP enjoyed “too big to fail” status when it was found to be in violation of Sherman in 1945. But its mission of conserving expensive telegraphy bandwidth while disseminating the news has been an anachronism for decades now. We actually don’t need the AP, and its homogenizing effect on news is precisely the sort of thing that the First Amendment exists to prevent.
Any libel suit against the AP et al should demand as damages the restoration of the public’s respect for the person libeled. That is, the MSM must be put under tremendous financial pressure to cause the polling data to show that the victim’s reputation has been restored.
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.