Clarence Thomas signals interest in making it easier to sue media

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: The Hill

COURT BATTLES

Clarence Thomas signals interest in making it easier to sue media

BY JOHN KRUZEL AND HARPER NEIDIG - 06/27/22 9:42 AM ET

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday expressed a 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 (SPLC). ... Coral Ridge Ministries Media sued the SPLC for defamation for listing them as a hate group on their public database, which led to Amazon excluding Coral Ridge as a recipient of charitable contributions from online shoppers.

Thomas dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the lawsuit, which had been dismissed by lower courts for failing to overcome the decades-old legal standard, established in the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, that public figures who sue for defamation must not only prove defendants made defamatory statements, but that those statements were made with “actual malice.” ... “This case is one of many showing how New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity,’” Thomas wrote.

“SPLC’s ‘hate group’ designation lumped Coral Ridge’s Christian ministry with groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis,” the justice added. “It placed Coral Ridge on an interactive, online ‘Hate Map’ and caused Coral Ridge concrete financial injury by excluding it from the AmazonSmile donation program. Nonetheless, unable to satisfy the ‘almost impossible’ actual-malice standard this Court has imposed, Coral Ridge could not hold SPLC to account for what it maintains is a blatant falsehood.”

It’s not the first time Thomas has called for revisiting the actual malice standard, which many journalists and free speech advocates see as a fundamental protection for reporting on public figures. ... Last year, he dissented in another instance where the Supreme Court declined to take up a defamation case that had been stymied by the 1964 precedent.

{snip}

Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3538084-clarence-thomas-signals-interest-in-making-it-easier-to-sue-media/

---

Hat tip, Joe.My.God.

Thomas Signals Interest In Making It Easier To Sue The Media As SCOTUS Rejects Suit From Florida Hate Group
June 27, 2022

https://www.joemygod.com/2022/06/thomas-signals-interest-in-making-it-easier-to-sue-media-after-scotus-rejects-suit-from-fl-hate-group/

[PortTack]

1. America's putin

[Justice matters.]

2. Lachlan Murdoch... get ready to live in Courthouses!!

[sop]

5. Clarence will grant FOX News exclusive immunity, just like Congress did with the gun industry.

OAN and Newsmax, too.

[llashram]

3. and his opinion

is interesting to me why? F*** Clarence Thomas and Ginni can keep reserving her place in hell alongside her husband. Too much power and money in too few hands have helped to bring us to this point in history.

[AllTooEasy]

30. Because his opinions could be law soon

I agree with you scorn for Thomas, but don't understand your lack of interest in his opinions. Interest in Thomas' opinions is equivalent to interest in the future of our legal standards, unfortunately now more than ever.

The SCOTUS can uphold or overturn any law or lower court decision. Anything the U.S. Supreme Court decides is final, regardless of what the POTUS, Congress, or majority of American people vote on or desire. The court is currently 6-3 conservative. Roberts used to have control, but Thomas and Alito control it now. Led by Thomas, the 5 staunch conservative justices (minus Roberts) have the ability and arguably the will to overturn Affirmative Action, contraceptives, Interracial marriage, Same-Sex marriage, all LGBTQ+ and Trans rights, Obamacare, ...shit, practically everything. Just as Roe v Wade was binding in all states, regardless of how dissenting states (ex. Texas) felt, so now is Dobbs v Jackson.

[llashram]

41. I don't disagree with your point

the SC is ruined for a generation at least. And yes all you fear can and will come true if America's governance processes and judicial processes continue to turn to fascism as a path of social authority. All I can do is vote and try to change minds when confronted with people like c. thomas and ginni.

D.trump has shown me just how much hate for all the groups you mention and how much people will embrace fascism if presented in a manner that is 'palatable' to them. One where they can justify their hate because millions believe as they do. All my life I have lived with racism as one of my fears in a society where I have seen faces distorted by hate and have heard the virulently racist vitriol coming from the mouths. You are right all of the present generations are going to see Thomas and his chums on the SC and Roberts destroy our freedoms as Americans living in a democracy.

And now Dobbs v Jackson...we will see

[aggiesal]

4. This is more, be careful what you want for (Q) Thomas ...

if this is allowed, we will sue FOX out of existence.

[dlk]

6. Thomas is burning our democracy to the ground

Never mind stare decisive. He must be impeached while we still have any democracy left.

[bdamomma]

10. his wife

needs to be subpoenaed by the 6th Jan. committee, haul her ass in.

[dlk]

44. Definitely

They are a team and equally awful.

[dlk]

47. Definitely

They are a team and equally awful.

[Calista241]

7. He's signaled that for years. Sarah Palin's case is due to be appealed as well.

We'll see if the Supremes take it.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. LooooLLLLL!

He's so out of control. A very selective textualist.

I think he knows that his time is running out. Once Ginni Thomas is dealt with in the J6 Investigation, it won't take long to see how they had the same agenda and were part of something bigger.

Expect Clarence to resurrect cries of a high-tech lynching when justice comes for him.

[Cracklin Charlie]

14. +1

[PatSeg]

17. Yep

[Prof. Toru Tanaka]

56. Fuck that asshole.

I'd like to see both of the Thomases behind bars.

[RAB910]

9. That would not work out well for the right-wing proganda machine

[sop]

11. Clarence doesn't give a damn about Qualified Immunity, though.

First created by the Supreme Court in 1967, qualified immunity is a legal shield that protects law enforcement officers, as well as other government employees, from being sued for violating a person's constitutional rights.

[KS Toronado]

12. This is a money making scheme for Clarence & Ginni

They know they're going to be in the news a lot in the near future and it's going to be negative news.
Isn't there a law about using your government position to enrich yourself?

[Cracklin Charlie]

13. I thought he was still in the hospital?

Funny how he can be well enough to make his revenge public, but “in the hospital” when it’s time to answer questions about his hate fest.

From The Hill. Can’t someone ask “The Hill” how that’s possible?

[inthewind21]

62. Ummm

He was released from the Hospital in March.

[bucolic_frolic]

15. Taking a wrecking ball to the whole Constitution, piece by piece

[PatSeg]

16. What the hell?

Thirty years and barely a peep out Thomas and now he won't shut up! Maybe he has personal reasons for making it easier to sue the media.

[CanonRay]

18. Who died and made this asshole king?

Seriously, WTF?

[AllTooEasy]

31. Ginsburg

Unfortunately.

[orangecrush]

38. I see

What you did there.

And yes, most unfortunate.

[Submariner]

19. For decades we barely heard from this lazy ass desk mammal

now he won't STFU from threatening Liberal establishment safe guards.

He'd should stick with his Coke can topped with pubic hair persona that we're used too.

[onenote]

27. He still rarely asks questions in oral argument, but he has long been known for writing

more separate opinions (concurring or dissenting) than any of the other Justices.

[redstatebluegirl]

20. Clarence isn't the Justice Ginni is.

All of this sounds like things she has been spewing for years. Clarence is just the mouthpiece for Ginni and her crazy supporters.

[lonely bird]

21. Soooo...

When did this become the Thomas court? Roberts, mediocre hack that he is, has lost any control he might have had.

So much for justices allegedly being non-political. Of course, that was bullshit from the start.

Start impeachment processes based upon Thomas no longer qualifying under good behavior.

[onenote]

29. How does a case where he couldn't get three other justices to support him make this his court?

All it would have taken for the Court to hear this case was three other justices voting to grant certiorari. There is no indication that any of them were willing to go along with him. Indeed, a year ago, in another case in which Thomas dissented from the denial of cert because he wanted to revisit NY Times v Sullivan, Gorsuch also dissented. But Gorsuch didn't dissent this time.

[lonely bird]

36. It isn't the case

It is his comments re Griswold, Obergefell and now this.

You can bet that the Reich Wing and Donnie the Dimwitted are salivating over Thomas’s words. Roberts is a mediocrity who is in danger of having his court deemed one of the crappiest of all time.

[onenote]

40. And what do those comments have to do with this case?

Commenting that it's his court in a thread about a case where he couldn't persuade three other justices to join his position seems like a bit of a non-sequitur.

By the way, Roberts has been in the majority far more often than Thomas (who is in the minority more than any other Republican appointed justice).

The idea that this is "Thomas's court" is a bit of media fabrication that makes for a nice story but doesn't reflect the reality of how the court operates.

[SouthernDem4ever]

48. that was before barrett and cavanaugh

Roberts has lost it.

[onenote]

51. Again -- he couldn't get three justices to join him in voting to hear this case

A year ago, Gorsuch took the same position as Thomas and dissented in a similar case. This year -- Gorsuch was silent.

The notion that Thomas "controls" the court is a media myth -- Roberts is in the majority more than Thomas (who is in the majority less than any other republican justice) -- and that was true last term, when both Kavanaugh and Barrett were on the court.

The reality is that no Chief Justice truly "controls" the court in the sense that he gets his way all the time.

[lonely bird]

53. The "Reality" is irrelevant

Thomas is utilizing agitprop in the court of public opinion.

[cloudboy07]

55. think he need's brain a check up !

GINI'S shit is getting the best of the old buzzard ?

[marieo1]

22. Disgusting

Clarence Thomas needs to shut up and resign and go spend time with his republican wife!!!

[dchill]

23. Dear Clarence; facts are not malice.

[LiberalFighter]

24. When is he going to get a terminal illness?

[malthaussen]

25. I liked it better when Clarence Thomas was silent. n/t

[Wingus Dingus]

28. Yeah, why are we suddenly hearing from this perv, after decades of being

basically a do-nothing lump?

[onenote]

32. You are mistaken

While Thomas famously had a reputation for rarely if ever asking questions from the bench during argument, he has been asking questions regularly for the past couple of years. And, more relevant to his dissent from the denial of certiorari in this case, he has long been known as the Justice most likely to write a separate dissenting or concurring opinion.

[malthaussen]

35. Still basically silent.

Those separate concurrences or dissents didn't make much news, to quote David Hume, they "fell dead-born from the Press."

He's noticeably more talkative now, and his opinions are notably radical. I preferred when we didn't have to take note of him.

-- Mal

[onenote]

37. This one did. So did the one a year ago where he made the same argument.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/02/politics/read-thomas-gorsuch-writings/index.html

[LogicFirst]

26. What does "Ginni" want now?

[3825-87867]

33. Interpretive law by Justice C. Thomas, SCOTUS

America's Media:

Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain!

It would be a shame if I had to pass a law allowing the media to be sued!

Do I make myself clear?

CT

[AllyCat]

34. This a$$hole hasn't said boo for decades.

Now he is all out there trying to legislate from the bench.

[Harker]

39. The complaining from the right about activist judges has stopped.

For the time being.

[Harker]

42. His opinion is about as welcome as that of Joe Manchin.

Suddenly, the creep thinks his ideas are relevant.

He's mistaken.

[keithbvadu2]

43. Ask Thomas if mixed race marriage is settled law.

[SouthernDem4ever]

49. yes, how does he feel about precedent on that issue?

he's and A-hole hypocrite.

[onenote]

52. I'm certain he would have no trouble distinguishing Roe and Loving

since the former was based on the Fifth Amendment and the latter was based on the Equal Protection Clause.

[Joinfortmill]

45. After 30 yrs. Clarence has found his voice. Pity us.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

46. Why does Uncle Clarence hate America?

[SouthernDem4ever]

50. Because we all would rather have had Anita Hill in his chair

instead of his pervy rear.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

54. Who is surprised by this?

Thomas really does not believe in the US Constitution

[Brainfodder]

57. Can I signal interest in this ASSHOLE getting a LONG KARMA visit?

[Martin68]

58. The man is a fascist in a judge's robes.

[YoshidaYui]

59. ass

Hole extraordinaire!

[onetexan]

60. Get this MF off the SCOTUS

I am so damn disgusted we dont have any mechanism to kick him off by proximity to his loony RW wife.

[EndlessWire]

61. Well, what do you expect?

He works for Trump. What is fascinating is how he's coming out. Before Trump, people kept their prejudices under wraps. Then Trump happened, and people felt free to express their blind hatreds of others. Now sits Clarence, post coup, and he's up there expressing his own hatreds and plans to change the face of our democracy.

This is exactly what Trump wanted, to change the rules in order for him to control the free Press. That's what fascists do. That's what Clarence is signaling that he is willing to do.

[NYC Liberal]

63. Easier to sue the media for words, impossible to sue the police for violating constitutional rights.