Today was mostly a slow news day, at least as regards material to comment on here. However, there are at least three legal related developments that may prove significant in the longer term. The first is the Sarah Palin defamation trial against the NYT. Palin’s lawsuit, as advertised, looks like it could succeed. Whether or not it does at the trial level, the likelihood is that it will end up going to the SCOTUS. Ask yourself, why would the NYT got to trial on this if they weren’t intending to appeal any adverse decision?
Mark writes, “the complaint gets to some of the substance of the whole injection issue.” I agree this is encouraging. Still, why only SOME of the substance? Why not assault via Nuremberg? Why ignore all the evidence of the harm being done?
That's what I'd like to see--a full blown constitutional challenge. However, the lawyers are being cautious because the precedent going way back to the Jacobson case is that vaccine mandates and even forced sterilization is OK. It's shaky precedent based in the Progressive Era and Justice Holmes, but that's what they're trying to get around.
Presumably the NYT gets highly competent legal advice, so I'm a bit mystified that they haven't settled. I'm no expert, but this looks like dangerous territory for them. Turley has no real explanation for this--he seems to think Palin has a strong case based on the emails, too:
It may be the case Gov Palin has a strategy in mind that includes going all the way to the Supreme Court; may be the point, in fact. NY jurisdiction and she doesn't win, does she not have an appeal path to the Supreme Court? If she wins, and NYT stops here, well, that would be a significant win; she wins and NYT appeals, path to Supreme Court?
Mark writes, “the complaint gets to some of the substance of the whole injection issue.” I agree this is encouraging. Still, why only SOME of the substance? Why not assault via Nuremberg? Why ignore all the evidence of the harm being done?
That's what I'd like to see--a full blown constitutional challenge. However, the lawyers are being cautious because the precedent going way back to the Jacobson case is that vaccine mandates and even forced sterilization is OK. It's shaky precedent based in the Progressive Era and Justice Holmes, but that's what they're trying to get around.
Presumably the NYT gets highly competent legal advice, so I'm a bit mystified that they haven't settled. I'm no expert, but this looks like dangerous territory for them. Turley has no real explanation for this--he seems to think Palin has a strong case based on the emails, too:
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/05/palin-v-nyt-new-evidence-suggests-the-new-york-times-ignored-internal-objections-to-palin-editorial/
True, but now they've had years to settle, and some adverse rulings leading up to the trial. Hard for me to figure.
I hope the Nyt loses, but I can see why they think they will win:
1. Hubris and Arrogance, since they are the paper of record and they have lied before with no cost.
2. Belief they will be let off like Rachel Meadows was.
3. Belief Sullivan protects them and the power of precedence.
4. They are on the right side of history.
5. Courts have historically protected the Left, and had a double standard with a conservative.
6. Manhattan based jury
7. Scotus swing votes are squishes that avoid hard decisions.
It may be the case Gov Palin has a strategy in mind that includes going all the way to the Supreme Court; may be the point, in fact. NY jurisdiction and she doesn't win, does she not have an appeal path to the Supreme Court? If she wins, and NYT stops here, well, that would be a significant win; she wins and NYT appeals, path to Supreme Court?