Justice Clarence Thomas files for repeal of landmark libel case per Trump's request - GoFuckYourself.com

Bladewire · 02-19-2019, 12:38 PM

Clarence Thomas wants to make it easier for rich powerful people in the public eye to sue for libel, per Trump's public request.

"Trump specifically named The New York Times in a March 2017 tweet: "The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?"

Justice Clarence Thomas files for repeal of landmark libel case per Trump's request

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday called for reconsideration of a landmark First Amendment precedent, criticizing the 1964 decision that the Constitution creates a higher barrier for public figures to claim libel.

Thomas wrote alongside a court decision not to take up the case of a woman who accused Bill Cosby of sexual misconduct in 2014. He suggested that the seminal case New York Times v. Sullivan, holding that public figures have a higher burden to prove libel, was wrongly decided.

"New York Times and the Court's decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law," Thomas wrote.

"If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we," the opinion states.

He continued, saying "We did not begin meddling in this area until 1964, nearly 175 years after the First Amendment was ratified. The States are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm. We should reconsider our jurisprudence in this area."

His position echoes complaints of President Donald Trump, who has called for libel laws to be reconsidered in light of news stories about him, said CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck.

"Since he was on the campaign trail, President Trump has complained about libel laws in the United States, and has argued that they should be rewritten," Vladeck said. "Justice Thomas's opinion today concurring in the denial of certiorari is a roadmap to exactly that result."

It would take four justices to grant such a case should one even reach the high court and no other justice joined Thomas' opinion on Tuesday.

Trump has harped on the issue repeatedly, publicly calling on politicians to change the currently standing libel laws.

"Isn't it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost. Don't know why Washington politicians don't change libel laws?" Trump wrote on Twitter in September.

In another instance, Trump specifically named The New York Times in a March 2017 tweet: "The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?"

crockett · 02-19-2019, 12:49 PM

So we can then sue Trump for calling people he doesn't like names.. Imagine tens of thousands of lawsuits aimed at him personally by every American patriot. If he says things that offend someone we can sue him..

Moral of the story Republicans hate America, Republicans hate freedom, republicans hat our Constitution. Republicans love Russia , Republicans love dictators.

We are going to have to end the Republican party and the GOP as they are a terrorist origination which sponsors terrorism on American soil.

ghjghj · 02-19-2019, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Clarence Thomas wants to make it easier for rich powerful people in the public eye to sue for libel, per Trump's public request.

"Trump specifically named The New York Times in a March 2017 tweet: "The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?"

Justice Clarence Thomas files for repeal of landmark libel case per Trump's request

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday called for reconsideration of a landmark First Amendment precedent, criticizing the 1964 decision that the Constitution creates a higher barrier for public figures to claim libel.

Thomas wrote alongside a court decision not to take up the case of a woman who accused Bill Cosby of sexual misconduct in 2014. He suggested that the seminal case New York Times v. Sullivan, holding that public figures have a higher burden to prove libel, was wrongly decided.

"New York Times and the Court's decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law," Thomas wrote.

"If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we," the opinion states.

He continued, saying "We did not begin meddling in this area until 1964, nearly 175 years after the First Amendment was ratified. The States are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm. We should reconsider our jurisprudence in this area."

His position echoes complaints of President Donald Trump, who has called for libel laws to be reconsidered in light of news stories about him, said CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck.

"Since he was on the campaign trail, President Trump has complained about libel laws in the United States, and has argued that they should be rewritten," Vladeck said. "Justice Thomas's opinion today concurring in the denial of certiorari is a roadmap to exactly that result."

It would take four justices to grant such a case should one even reach the high court and no other justice joined Thomas' opinion on Tuesday.

Trump has harped on the issue repeatedly, publicly calling on politicians to change the currently standing libel laws.

"Isn't it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost. Don't know why Washington politicians don't change libel laws?" Trump wrote on Twitter in September.

In another instance, Trump specifically named The New York Times in a March 2017 tweet: "The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?"

Media

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

So we can then sue Trump for calling people he doesn't like names.. Imagine tens of thousands of lawsuits aimed at him personally by every American patriot. If he says things that offend someone we can sue him..

Moral of the story Republicans hate America, Republicans hate freedom, republicans hat our Constitution. Republicans love Russia , Republicans love dictators.

We are going to have to end the Republican party and the GOP as they are a terrorist origination which sponsors terrorism on American soil.

Matters

Bladewire · 02-19-2019, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

So we can then sue Trump for calling people he doesn't like names.. Imagine tens of thousands of lawsuits aimed at him personally by every American patriot. If he says things that offend someone we can sue him..

Moral of the story Republicans hate America, Republicans hate freedom, republicans hat our Constitution. Republicans love Russia , Republicans love dictators.

We are going to have to end the Republican party and the GOP as they are a terrorist origination which sponsors terrorism on American soil.

Yes it's a double edged sword the Roger Stones & Infowars of America will be toast.

2MuchMark · 02-19-2019, 01:32 PM

Here's an idea: Why don't GOPers who love country and freedom and liberty and the constitution so much, mayne oh, I don't know, start standing up for these things?

Rochard · 02-19-2019, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Here's an idea: Why don't GOPers who love country and freedom and liberty and the constitution so much, mayne oh, I don't know, start standing up for these things?

Lack of spine.

Bladewire · 02-19-2019, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Here's an idea: Why don't GOPers who love country and freedom and liberty and the constitution so much, mayne oh, I don't know, start standing up for these things?

Trump supporters are ignorant and don't realize they're supporting the mission of the 1% to erode their rights and turn them into modern day slaves & cattle

02-19-2019, 12:38 PM	#1
Bladewire StraightBro Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Monarch Beach, CA USA Posts: 56,229	Justice Clarence Thomas files for repeal of landmark libel case per Trump's request Clarence Thomas wants to make it easier for rich powerful people in the public eye to sue for libel, per Trump's public request. "Trump specifically named The New York Times in a March 2017 tweet: "The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?" Justice Clarence Thomas files for repeal of landmark libel case per Trump's request Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday called for reconsideration of a landmark First Amendment precedent, criticizing the 1964 decision that the Constitution creates a higher barrier for public figures to claim libel. Thomas wrote alongside a court decision not to take up the case of a woman who accused Bill Cosby of sexual misconduct in 2014. He suggested that the seminal case New York Times v. Sullivan, holding that public figures have a higher burden to prove libel, was wrongly decided. "New York Times and the Court's decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law," Thomas wrote. "If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we," the opinion states. He continued, saying "We did not begin meddling in this area until 1964, nearly 175 years after the First Amendment was ratified. The States are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm. We should reconsider our jurisprudence in this area." His position echoes complaints of President Donald Trump, who has called for libel laws to be reconsidered in light of news stories about him, said CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck. "Since he was on the campaign trail, President Trump has complained about libel laws in the United States, and has argued that they should be rewritten," Vladeck said. "Justice Thomas's opinion today concurring in the denial of certiorari is a roadmap to exactly that result." It would take four justices to grant such a case should one even reach the high court and no other justice joined Thomas' opinion on Tuesday. Trump has harped on the issue repeatedly, publicly calling on politicians to change the currently standing libel laws. "Isn't it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost. Don't know why Washington politicians don't change libel laws?" Trump wrote on Twitter in September. In another instance, Trump specifically named The New York Times in a March 2017 tweet: "The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?"

02-19-2019, 12:49 PM	#2
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	So we can then sue Trump for calling people he doesn't like names.. Imagine tens of thousands of lawsuits aimed at him personally by every American patriot. If he says things that offend someone we can sue him.. Moral of the story Republicans hate America, Republicans hate freedom, republicans hat our Constitution. Republicans love Russia , Republicans love dictators. We are going to have to end the Republican party and the GOP as they are a terrorist origination which sponsors terrorism on American soil. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

02-19-2019, 01:32 PM	#5
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 48,587	Here's an idea: Why don't GOPers who love country and freedom and liberty and the constitution so much, mayne oh, I don't know, start standing up for these things?