United States Clarence Thomas signals interest in making it easier to sue media

DarthOne

☦️
Clarence Thomas signals interest in making it easier to sue media


Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday expressed his desire to revisit a landmark 1964 ruling that makes it relatively difficult to bring successful lawsuits against media outlets for defamation.

Thomas’s statement came in response to the court’s decision to turn away an appeal from a Christian nonprofit group who disputed their characterization by the civil rights watchdog group Southern Poverty Law Center.



My reaction:
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
It would need careful consideration in order to avoid violating people's freedom of speech; but at the same time, the system we have now clearly isn't working as intended. People are exploiting it in order to defame their enemies without it technically being defamation, and that can't be allowed to continue.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
The man has had some pretty serious success with in the last couple weeks.
Yeah, because other people were joining him. Note that his concurrence with Dobbs also grabbed no one. I don't expect this or his Dobbs concurrence to go anywhere.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Yeah, because other people were joining him. Note that his concurrence with Dobbs also grabbed no one. I don't expect this or his Dobbs concurrence to go anywhere.
He might get more traction on pushing back substantive due process. He might not get to reconsider older cases, but there's a good chance that going forward it will see less and less use.

But he's right about this court decision. It needs to be looked at again, the level to which the media can hide behind "opinion" while defaming individuals is pretty excessive.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
He might get more traction on pushing back substantive due process. He might not get to reconsider older cases, but there's a good chance that going forward it will see less and less use.

But he's right about this court decision. It needs to be looked at again, the level to which the media can hide behind "opinion" while defaming individuals is pretty excessive.
Even with Obergfell, if they went back and revisited it, and this time justified it under Full Faith and Credit, it would have more solid ground to stand on, and it would return it to the states like with this.

If some states do not want same-sex marriage, but will have to recognize legal paperwork from states that do, that is an acceptable outcome. It means all old marriages will still be valid, but some states do not have to do new ceremonies or license's if they decide not to via a ballot measure.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Even with Obergfell, if they went back and revisited it, and this time justified it under Full Faith and Credit, it would have more solid ground to stand on, and it would return it to the states like with this.
Again, Obergefell is good under Equal Protection. Full Faith and credit doesn't solve the problem, as I point out below.
If some states do not want same-sex marriage, but will have to recognize legal paperwork from states that do, that is an acceptable outcome. It means all old marriages will still be valid, but some states do not have to do new ceremonies or license's if they decide not to via a ballot measure.
No, it would invalidate marriages done in states that don't want to allow them. And no, I'm not fine with a patchwork here. Nor would most LGBTs, even the ones that are republicans. It quite simply wouldn't be equal rights, and is 100% how you'd actually give LGBT activism an actual cause to fight. And I don't want that machine to exist anymore.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Again, Obergefell is good under Equal Protection. Full Faith and credit doesn't solve the problem, as I point out below.

No, it would invalidate marriages done in states that don't want to allow them. And no, I'm not fine with a patchwork here. Nor would most LGBTs, even the ones that are republicans. It quite simply wouldn't be equal rights, and is 100% how you'd actually give LGBT activism an actual cause to fight. And I don't want that machine to exist anymore.
We'll see, and I do think Equal Protection applies, however Full Faith and Credit between states does apply as well.

I personally doubt Obergfell will get revisited simply because I do not see anyone seriously attempting to do so and not get smacked down long before it gets to SCOTUS. It requires different circuits coming to different ruling to usually get things to SCOTUS, and I do not see any circuit court actually siding against Obergfell unless SCOTUS does so first.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
How can one man be this based. I say we make Thomas both a Supreme Court justice AND president it’s not explicitly banned in the constitution is it?
Because Thomas is an honest to goodness old fashioned American success story. His parents were lower class, and he's old enough to see how things were altered from when he was a kid in order to prevent others from following the same path he trod and he hates it. He also had been consistently on the receiving end of the left's demonization tactics far longer than most here have been aware of those tactics, due to him being a black man who refused to toe the party line.

For those unaware, one of the reasons American Conservatives are so hostile to White Nationalists is that in the 90s and 00s there came to prominence a big three intellectual core of American Conservatism that showed just how stupid it would be to cut out people just because of race, those big three are:

Clarence Thomas
Walter E. Williams (God rest his soul.)
Thomas Sowell

These three black men were unarguably smarter than most anyone around them (well, OK, Thomas generally did have intellectual equals around him, what with him working with Scalia) and were lions of Conservatism. Sowell and Williams on economics, and Thomas on the Law. They have written hugely influential books and opinions, and all three showcase what can be achieved by Americans given the opportunity and drive to succeed.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Because Thomas is an honest to goodness old fashioned American success story. His parents were lower class, and he's old enough to see how things were altered from when he was a kid in order to prevent others from following the same path he trod and he hates it. He also had been consistently on the receiving end of the left's demonization tactics far longer than most here have been aware of those tactics, due to him being a black man who refused to toe the party line.

For those unaware, one of the reasons American Conservatives are so hostile to White Nationalists is that in the 90s and 00s there came to prominence a big three intellectual core of American Conservatism that showed just how stupid it would be to cut out people just because of race, those big three are:

Clarence Thomas
Walter E. Williams (God rest his soul.)
Thomas Sowell

These three black men were unarguably smarter than most anyone around them (well, OK, Thomas generally did have intellectual equals around him, what with him working with Scalia) and were lions of Conservatism. Sowell and Williams on economics, and Thomas on the Law. They have written hugely influential books and opinions, and all three showcase what can be achieved by Americans given the opportunity and drive to succeed.

well that and the republican party was litterally created in the first place to end slavery. So yeah the community were the foundational members of the party.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Again, Obergefell is good under Equal Protection. Full Faith and credit doesn't solve the problem, as I point out below.

Oz3bMCt.jpg


Sorry; just felt like sharing this meme since it's sort-of relevant here.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top