http://www.newsbug.info/news/nation/how-...0ae13.html

Today the Supreme Court said it would not consider a defamation case involving Bill Cosby. But the announcement came with a twist: Justice Clarence Thomas called for a reconsideration of the nation's libel laws.

Thomas, in a 14-page opinion issued Tuesday, agreed with the court's decision not to take McKee's case. But he used it as an opportunity to call for a review of libel standards for public figures.

In a landmark 1964 case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that public figures must prove that a statement about them was made with "actual malice," or a disregard for whether it is false, in order to succeed in defamation cases.

McKee was unable to prove actual malice so her case could not proceed, Thomas wrote. But Thomas said the court should question this precedent and suggested the justices should, with a different case, reconsider New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

President Donald Trump, who often complains about the media, has called for changing libel laws. It's very convenient for Justice Thomas to now call for changing libel laws. And this ruling comes less than a month after Trump met for an hour in the White House with Thomas and his wife.

Last month, the New York Times reported that Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, met with Donald Trump at the White House to lobby for patronage jobs. Thomas and her far-right associates also reportedly conveyed a litany of conservative complaints to the president, condemning military service by transgender people and women as well as marriage equality. But the main purpose of the meeting, according to the Times, was graft: Thomas wants the Trump administration to hire more of her friends and believes the president’s aides are blocking their appointment.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019...grift.html

Racist

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Maybe Thomas still holds a grudge after Anita Hill and the dims attacked his good character when he was going to the the appointment process. I could see how he might want to see some change in the libel law.

By the way, your title is petty and misleading. I see what you are attempting to do, but it does not equate. This is an apples to oranges comparison when the intent of this thread is examined next to the Ginsberg thread.

At least he shows up to cast his vote.

(02-19-2019 09:36 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Maybe Thomas still holds a grudge after Anita Hill and the dims attacked his good character when he was going to the the appointment process. I could see how he might want to see some change in the libel law.

By the way, your title is petty and misleading. I see what you are attempting to do, but it does not equate. This is an apples to oranges comparison when the intent of this thread is examined next to the Ginsberg thread. I expect better from a Rice grad.

That would make some solid common ground between them.

Slate.com no ax to grind there

(02-19-2019 09:24 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  http://www.newsbug.info/news/nation/how-...0ae13.html

Today the Supreme Court said it would not consider a defamation case involving Bill Cosby. But the announcement came with a twist: Justice Clarence Thomas called for a reconsideration of the nation's libel laws.

Thomas, in a 14-page opinion issued Tuesday, agreed with the court's decision not to take McKee's case. But he used it as an opportunity to call for a review of libel standards for public figures.

In a landmark 1964 case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that public figures must prove that a statement about them was made with "actual malice," or a disregard for whether it is false, in order to succeed in defamation cases.

McKee was unable to prove actual malice so her case could not proceed, Thomas wrote. But Thomas said the court should question this precedent and suggested the justices should, with a different case, reconsider New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

President Donald Trump, who often complains about the media, has called for changing libel laws. It's very convenient for Justice Thomas to now call for changing libel laws. And this ruling comes less than a month after Trump met for an hour in the White House with Thomas and his wife.

Last month, the New York Times reported that Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, met with Donald Trump at the White House to lobby for patronage jobs. Thomas and her far-right associates also reportedly conveyed a litany of conservative complaints to the president, condemning military service by transgender people and women as well as marriage equality. But the main purpose of the meeting, according to the Times, was graft: Thomas wants the Trump administration to hire more of her friends and believes the president’s aides are blocking their appointment.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019...grift.html

How many days were Sotomayor and Ginsburg a 'Justice for hire' for Obama using your own standard? On a related topic, what is 7.5 x 365?

(02-19-2019 09:36 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  By the way, your title is petty and misleading. I see what you are attempting to do, but it does not equate. This is an apples to oranges comparison when the intent of this thread is examined next to the Ginsberg thread.

Someone is salty as f*ck about the Ginsburg thread.

(02-19-2019 10:14 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 09:36 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  By the way, your title is petty and misleading. I see what you are attempting to do, but it does not equate. This is an apples to oranges comparison when the intent of this thread is examined next to the Ginsberg thread.

Someone is salty as f*ck about the Ginsburg thread.

Not being salty, just pointing out that the Ginsberg thread was about the fact that RBG was out of the public eye for an extended period of time and the story was being completely ignored by the so called media. The thread raised genuine concerns about her health and ability to serve in her position on the court. Some on the left would not acknowledge the issue or attempted to deflect the conversation. Which I found equally troubling.

This thread is an obvious spoof aimed at the oldest conservative justice, and is based on conjecture. This claim of Thomas being a shill for Trump is laughable. Thomas' positions have been consistent over his 27 years on the court.

Like I stated, apples to oranges...

(02-19-2019 10:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:14 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 09:36 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  By the way, your title is petty and misleading. I see what you are attempting to do, but it does not equate. This is an apples to oranges comparison when the intent of this thread is examined next to the Ginsberg thread.

Someone is salty as f*ck about the Ginsburg thread.

Not being salty, just pointing out that the Ginsberg thread was about the fact that RBG was out of the public eye for an extended period of time and the story was being completely ignored by the so called media. The thread raised genuine concerns about her health and ability to serve in her position on the court. Some on the left would not acknowledge the issue or attempted to deflect the conversation. Which I found equally troubling.

This thread is an obvious spoof aimed at the oldest conservative justice, and is based on conjecture. This claim of Thomas being a shill for Trump is laughable. Thomas' positions have been consistent over his 27 years on the court.

Like I stated, apples to oranges...

I don’t think you’re the one being referred to.

Just another example of liberals stealing the original concept of republicans and applying it poorly.

(02-19-2019 09:24 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  http://www.newsbug.info/news/nation/how-...0ae13.html

Today the Supreme Court said it would not consider a defamation case involving Bill Cosby. But the announcement came with a twist: Justice Clarence Thomas called for a reconsideration of the nation's libel laws.

Thomas, in a 14-page opinion issued Tuesday, agreed with the court's decision not to take McKee's case. But he used it as an opportunity to call for a review of libel standards for public figures.

In a landmark 1964 case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that public figures must prove that a statement about them was made with "actual malice," or a disregard for whether it is false, in order to succeed in defamation cases.

McKee was unable to prove actual malice so her case could not proceed, Thomas wrote. But Thomas said the court should question this precedent and suggested the justices should, with a different case, reconsider New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

President Donald Trump, who often complains about the media, has called for changing libel laws. It's very convenient for Justice Thomas to now call for changing libel laws. And this ruling comes less than a month after Trump met for an hour in the White House with Thomas and his wife.

Last month, the New York Times reported that Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, met with Donald Trump at the White House to lobby for patronage jobs. Thomas and her far-right associates also reportedly conveyed a litany of conservative complaints to the president, condemning military service by transgender people and women as well as marriage equality. But the main purpose of the meeting, according to the Times, was graft: Thomas wants the Trump administration to hire more of her friends and believes the president’s aides are blocking their appointment.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019...grift.html

Epic fail. Try something original if you can. This was a bad idea from the start.

(02-20-2019 07:18 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 09:24 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  http://www.newsbug.info/news/nation/how-...0ae13.html

Today the Supreme Court said it would not consider a defamation case involving Bill Cosby. But the announcement came with a twist: Justice Clarence Thomas called for a reconsideration of the nation's libel laws.

Thomas, in a 14-page opinion issued Tuesday, agreed with the court's decision not to take McKee's case. But he used it as an opportunity to call for a review of libel standards for public figures.

In a landmark 1964 case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that public figures must prove that a statement about them was made with "actual malice," or a disregard for whether it is false, in order to succeed in defamation cases.

McKee was unable to prove actual malice so her case could not proceed, Thomas wrote. But Thomas said the court should question this precedent and suggested the justices should, with a different case, reconsider New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

President Donald Trump, who often complains about the media, has called for changing libel laws. It's very convenient for Justice Thomas to now call for changing libel laws. And this ruling comes less than a month after Trump met for an hour in the White House with Thomas and his wife.

Last month, the New York Times reported that Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, met with Donald Trump at the White House to lobby for patronage jobs. Thomas and her far-right associates also reportedly conveyed a litany of conservative complaints to the president, condemning military service by transgender people and women as well as marriage equality. But the main purpose of the meeting, according to the Times, was graft: Thomas wants the Trump administration to hire more of her friends and believes the president’s aides are blocking their appointment.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019...grift.html

Epic fail. Try something original if you can. This was a bad idea from the start.

Yep. Epic fail. Anita Hill anyone? Ford and Ramirez and Avenatti's client?