IMHO they can - do that when they are given a case which allows them to reconsider New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.Sullivan - a unanimous 1964 decision by the Warren Court - denies political officials and judges easy access to the courts when suing for libel. But it does so on the ground that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”. . . and the conceit that the First Amendment has any impact at all is a claim that was novel in 1964. No court held that before 1964 because historically, it is well known that the Federalists who passed the First Amendment were not trying to make potentially controversial changes in anyone’s rights but were striving precisely in the opposite direction - they needed and wanted to suppress controversy over rights, and to that end they sought to guarantee that under the Constitution it would be difficult to change anyone’s rights.And the people already had the right not to be libeled, and the Ninth Amendment indicates clearly that that right didn’t change. Not for the public at large, and not for officials.
JUSTICE SCALIA: THE 45 WORDS — AND ORIGINAL MEANING — OF THE FIRST AMENDMENTconfirms that Scalia thought Sullivan was bad law.Sullivan is no imposition at all on Democrats; the “objective journalism” cartel defines “liberal” (and “progressive”) (shhh, don’t tell anyone) as meaning nothing other than “simpatico with the journalism cartel”) - so no “liberal” ever gets libeled. Some Republican official must sue for libel in the teeth of Sullivan.