The White House last I read was planning to send the Senate paperwork for Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination today. The other candidate in the public eye was Barbara Lagoa and President Trump had announced earlier that he’d choose between five women, who are of course harder to tar with cynical rape accusations.
Everyone knows what would’ve happened if Trump nominated a male judge. The Democrats, like Black Lives Matter, want to dismantle the nuclear family, uphold race discrimination programs and keep infanticide legal, and they’ll stop at nothing to do this. Kavanaugh’s accusers were obviously paid to lie about him; Clarence Thomas likewise was attacked without a shred of evidence during his nomination hearings. The Washington City Paper searched Robert Bork’s video rental history for porn during his hearings.
These innuendo-based assaults are broadcast, repeated and amplified on every form of media and they’re not limited to Supreme Court nominations, as we continue to see with the MSM and President Trump. No attack is too low, no accusation too flimsy and no proof is ever needed. See the New York Times’ latest uncorroborated claim (about the president’s tax returns).
In an interview with Mark Levin last week, Trump called on the Supreme Court to put an end to this:
I would love to strengthen up the libel laws so when “The New York Times” writes ones of many fake stories, you can sue them and have a substantial chance of winning…
They can say anything they want, and if you’re famous, … you have absolutely no chance. There’s nothing you can do legally…
They should relook at that. I saw where Clarence Thomas, in an article, said it’s time that we relooked at Sullivan, because it’s totally out of control.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the 1964 New York Times vs Sullivan case established a “malice standard” for libel against public officials: for a defendant to be guilty of libel, the prosecution must be able to prove that he knew his statement was false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
“If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard,” he said, “then neither should we … [Sullivan] and the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.”
Without this ruling providing legal cover, there’d have been no Kavanaugh circus because they all would be sued. There would be no innuendo about the president’s tax returns or phonecalls, no Steele Dossier and no Russia “investigation,” no Billy Bush, no Stormy Daniels, no impeachment. The entire Trump news cycle would be dead in the water, and without the news cycle, there would be no coup.
Instead we are forced to cringe through one lie after another and told that what we are experiencing is the “free press,” as we watch unelected bureaucrats try to overthrow the government. Hidden under a labyrinth of shell companies and shielded by the Sullivan ruling, the owners of the MSM slander anyone who threatens them and the reporters are their slaves. This isn’t free speech, as the Court ruled against Sullivan, it’s a Machiavellian assault on free speech.
Overturning this horrible precedent would be one of the biggest rulings a conservative Supreme Court could make.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.