Justice Thomas Speaks Out Alone Against Landmark Supreme Court Ruling

Epoch Times ^ | 10/10/23 | Jack Phillips

[CFW]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal from Don Blankenship, a former coal company CEO who ran for president in 2020, after he argued that major news outlets defamed him, while Justice Clarence Thomas argued that a landmark defamation ruling should be revisited.

A lower court ruled against Mr. Blankenship, the former chief executive of Massey Energy, after he served a year in prison on a misdemeanor charge following a West Virginia coal mine explosion that left 29 people dead in 2010. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s determination that CNN, Fox News, and 14 other outlets sued by the former CEO did not act with “actual malice” amid coverage of his unsuccessful 2018 U.S. Senate campaign, even if they failed to meet journalistic standards.

The Supreme Court left that ruling intact on Tuesday. Justice Thomas, who agreed with the lower court ruling, called on the high court to overturn the landmark 1964 ruling in the New York Times v. Sullivan.

[CFW]

paywall free link:

Justice Thomas Speaks Out Alone Against Landmark Supreme Court Ruling

[TexasFreeper2009]

the ruling referred to here is what allows the media to constantly lie about Trump without fear of being sued by him.

[TBP]

New York Times v. Sullivan needs to be overturned, or at least severely clipped.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

If you read the article, the full Supreme Court refused to review the case because the he sued under a WV state statute which contains the actual malice standard. NYT v. Sullivan does not apply because the Supreme Court attached an actual malice penumbra to the First Amendment which was not in the statute that Sullivan sued under.

NYT v. Sullivan has done enormous harm, no doubt.

[Revel]

What I know is that Thomas is the last constitutional justice that will ever serve on the USSC, and sadly he has almost aged out.

[j.havenfarm]

Sullivan is unconstitutional. It came from the “we just make s**t up” mode of SCOTUS thinking that brought you such favorites as Plessey, Koramatsu, Roe and Obergfell, among many other hits they pull right out of their asses

[curious7]

Don’t leave out the Dred Scott decision from the line-up! It’s been going on for a long time. (The making stuff up part.)

[j.havenfarm]

We could go on and on: Fillburn, Griswold, etc etc. And, may I speak heresy? Madison v. Marbury. Naked unconstitutional power grab

[Bayard]

So not the right case to revisit the SCOTUS decision then.

[Armando Guerra]

So not the right case to revisit the SCOTUS decision then.

That was my interpretation of what the article stated and there does appear to be a possibility take it up in the future. When you have Thomas, Gorsuch and Kagan all indicating a willingness to revisit the NY Times v. Sullivan standard there is hope. I would think with the way Kavanaugh was treated by the press he would be itching to go at it too. That's 4 right there.

[Rockingham]

Sullivan, like many Supreme Court precedents, is due for review against current textualist/originalist legal scholarship and criticism. A good case for doing so though has not yet reached the Court, so Thomas used this case for signaling his interest in that happening.

The effect of Thomas's opinion will be to draw money and some quite clever and high priced, elite level conservative appellate lawyers to such an effort. Over the coming months and years, cases in lower courts will be developed in order to get an opportunity to revisit Sullivan in front of the Supreme Court. The working surmise will be that Thomas and his allies on the Court are confident that they have the necessary votes to win the issue and a good idea of how Sullivan should be reworked.

[CFW]

“the ruling referred to here is what allows the media to constantly lie about Trump without fear of being sued by him.”

—

I wonder how many court’s opinions are based on “but how could Trump possibly use this against Democrats if we rule this way”? Anyway, all laws and regulations seem to have a “Trump exception” to them these days.

[tomkat]

It came from the “we just make s**t up” mode

The poster boy for that mindset > John Marshall, 1801-1835.

[TBP]

Wickard v. Filburn

[Lake Living]

I’m not sure we have that long as a country.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Justice Thomas once more shows why he is my favorite justice.

[Rusty0604]

Thanks for posting.

[Tommy Revolts]

Couple of takeaways...

1.) The right to publish all statements is protected under the First Amendment. 2.) The Constitution prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood related to his official conduct.

The SC ruled unanimously in favor of the New York Times.
The Left was embedded deep in 1964.

[CFW]

“Justice Thomas once more shows why he is my favorite justice.”

---

Mine as well. I’ve mentioned here a couple of times that I’ve had the opportunity to meet with him on a few occasions and sit and chat on several issues. He is so easy to talk to! And so knowledgeable about our nation’s history and its Constitution and laws. He acts as if he has all the time in the world to talk with you and never forgets anything you tell him. It is amazing!

[Rockingham]

I have the grim consolation that my age means that I may well expire first.