THE BURNED OVER DISTRICT

And in this opinion he states that the court need to re-examine a 1964 libel ruling, New York Times v. Sullivan, that made the standard more difficult for a public official to sue for libel. With the Orange Hemorrhoid whining about everybody being mean to him, one has to believe this idea came from Ginny's lips to Clarence's ear at the request of OH.

ustice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday called for the Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 ruling interpreting the First Amendment to make it hard for public officials to prevail in libel suits.

He said the decision was the product of unprincipled “legal alchemy” that had no basis in the Constitution as understood by the people who drafted and ratified it.

“New York Times and the court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,” Justice Thomas wrote.

Justice Thomas, writing only for himself, made his statement in a concurring opinion agreeing that the court had correctly turned down an appeal from Katharine McKee, who has accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault. She sued Mr. Cosby for libel after his lawyer accused her of dishonesty, and she lost based on cases stemming from the 1964 decision.

“I agree with the court’s decision not to take up” Ms. McKee’s case, Justice Thomas wrote. “I write to explain why, in an appropriate case, we should reconsider the precedents that require courts to ask it in the first place.”

“We did not begin meddling in this area until 1964, nearly 175 years after the First Amendment was ratified,” Justice Thomas wrote of the Sullivan decision, which placed constitutional limits on what had until then been state-law claims. “The states are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm. We should reconsider our jurisprudence in this area.”

Justice Thomas’s statement came in the wake of complaints from President Trump that libel laws make it too hard for public officials to win libel suits.

“I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Mr. Trump said on the campaign trail. “We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”

It is indeed hard for public figures to win libel suits. They have to prove that something false was said about them, that it harmed their reputation and that the writer acted with “actual malice.” That last term is misleading, as it has nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of malice in the sense of spite or ill will.

The is no way the Orange Hemorrhoid should have an easier path to suing citizens but Clarence likes his monthly bj so there is no way he will cross Ginny. Expect the Federalist Society to actively seek cases to work up to the Supremes so Clarence might get his wish.