Judge dismisses Palin defamation case against New York Times

The Hill ^ | 08/29/2017 | Jacqueline Thomsen

[AndyJackson]

Judge Jed Rakoff's opinion dismissing Pain v NYT

[KC_Lion]

An Expected Ping to Sarah's List.

You are not surprised are you?

[TADSLOS]

Oh, look, another leftist activist judge. Is anyone really surprised by this?

[deport]

BTTT

[Paladin2]

He looks Happy.

[Paulie]

No, not surprised. But I’m sick and tired of the double standards. And had a belly full of communist judges in this country.

This calls for the following:

Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?

A: Your Honor.

(many a truth is made in jest, eh?)

[Regulator]

Tells it all

Why do we call this Marxist agitator from the Pale of Settlement an “American”?

He has nothing but spiteful contempt for us.

[Sacajaweau]

There is no appeal.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I am not sure that he is gay but his having sex with inflatable sheep does mean that he is a pervert.

[Paulie]

Just had a thought, KC -

Didn’t Melania sue a British newspaper for slander or defamation or something? Thing she won a settlement and an apology if I’m not mistaken.

Maybe Sarah can follow the same script or contact that lawyer?

[SkyDancer]

Yeah, ho-hum, just a mistake. They happen. >BANG< Next case.

[longtermmemmory]

In discovery the NYT would have the flaming throwing bias exposed.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

That was in the UK.

This is the US where judges who have sex with inflatable sheep protect their suppliers.

[kiryandil]

As in “Negan and Lucille”...

[ponygirl]

Is that his mouth or his labia?

[TBP]

Partisan judge. She must appeal.

[Lurking Libertarian]

There is no appeal.

A dismissal of a complaint with prejudice is an appealable order. 28 U.S.C. 1291.

[neverevergiveup]

She absolutely needs to follow this through to the Supreme Court if necessary. What this judge said was that the benefit of a free press, even if it leads to damages to an individual citizen, is worth those damages. It’s an argument of sacrifice of the individual citizen for the ‘greater good’ - defining ‘greater good’ as it favors Goliath over David. This is the kind of argument that would be made in a totalitarian government, either fascist or communist, and Sarah has an obligation to fight this decision (and we have an obligation to fund her to do this, if necessary).

It’s a very basic question. Which is more important, the rights of an individual citizen against false witness and public condemnation, or the rights of media to publish without verification of facts? If this is framed in the right way, it could have a huge impact and set a very important legal precedent. It should absolutely be pursued aggressively.

[neverevergiveup]

Aside from the specifics of this case, it is high past time for the mechanics of the legal system to be reformed. In this context, precedent needs to be entirely thrown out, and the final decision on limitations to appeals and the mechanics of the legal process need to be rethought, with significant input by entities outside of the legal profession. Attorneys and judges have proved themselves incapable of self-policing. Legal reform is absolutely necessary. The law, like journalism, is an essential and critical component of our Republic, but it has been hijacked. The intent of the law, rather than the nuanced and mutable ‘letter of the law’ needs to be resurrected as a determinant of legal decisions.

[raiderboy]

Just file it again in alaska.