In the case of Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc., which emerged from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, nobody but the parties involved cared about the issues in the case. It became noteworthy, though, because Judge Laurence Silberman used the dissent, not just to disagree with the majority’s ruling, but also to warn against the danger of a national media that is completely allied with the party controlling all of Washington D.C. However, I find the case even more exciting because it attacks the notion of Supreme Court infallibility.
The majority in the Tah case did a good job of summarizing the case and you’ll see why nobody in America was paying attention:
-WiscoDave
Prepping to make it easier to sue political critics without requiring "actual malice".
ReplyDeleteLike "Pedo Joe". Or "Sec Def Idi Amin".
Maybe I'll have to put a disclaimer on public figure insults: "any malice which may be implied these statements is absolutely deliberate".
What kind of idiot thinks that the U.S. Supreme Court justices think that they are infallible? There have been cases where previous rulings have been reversed. here's a list:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
I think the Supreme Court forfeited any right to claim infallibility when they refused to consider election fraud that overturned our government to a cadre of corrupt, self-interested bigots.
ReplyDeleteThat horse has left the barn.
For me, it was Kelo v. New London
DeleteRoe v Wade 1973 proved that they're a bunch of idiots in addition to not being infallible.
DeleteNemo
Offhand, from recent decisions from many federal judges since 2008, I think we could wipe out about 90% of federal judges for not ruling by the Constitution. They are Marxist. And even in lower courts the judges have become much more totalitarian. Indict them all and then let God sort them out
ReplyDeletePerhaps the biggest 'fuck you' that W. Bush did to the nation was to not only nominate John Roberts to the court but to put him in as Chief Justice with absolutely zero experience on SCOTUS. Talk about an agenda. OTOH, about every new justice in the last 50 years has been a disaster, other than a few you can count on the fingers of one hand.
ReplyDelete