Over the years, I have written repeatedly (here, here, here, here, and here) about the interesting defamation case brought by Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, against the New York Times. The judge in the case U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff was previously reversed and proceeded to issue novel and deeply flawed rulings before dismissing her case. He has now been reversed again and Palin will have a new opportunity to sue the newspaper. Given Judge Rakoff’s dismal record in this case, it is concerning that he will be allowed to preside in any new trial.
In the opinion below, the three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a 2022 jury verdict in favor of the New York Times due to the errors of Judge Rakoff.
The case involves an editorial that suggested Palin inspired or incited Jared Loughner’s 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). It was outrageously and demonstrably untrue. The editorial was published in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and other GOP members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, of Illinois, 66, a liberal activist and campaign supporter of Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). It appears The Times wanted to shift the narrative back to right-wing violence; it stated that SarahPAC, Palin’s political action committee, had posted a graphic that put Giffords in crosshairs before she was shot, described it as direct incitement of violence and opined that while not as guilty as Palin, “liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”
In reality, the map SarahPAC distributed put targets on various districts that were viewed as possible flip districts by Republicans, and the map was published long before the shooting.
Previously, Rakoff insisted that he was “not at all happy to make this decision” but that he was, again, forced to dismiss the case because the Supreme Court established “a very high standard for actual malice” for public figures in seeking recovery for defamation. He was referring to the New York Times v. Sullivan standard requiring a showing that a false statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
The Times helped create this standard as the victim of a bias campaign. The status is far less obvious today. For many, the Palin controversy exposed the “advocacy journalism” now in vogue in the media. The hit piece on Palin was all-too-familiar for conservatives and Republicans routinely targeted by the newspaper. In that sense, the Times has become the very thing that the original decision sought to combat: a threat to free speech. The Times, they argue, often uses this protection to shield false attacks on political opponents.
Decades ago, The Times was being targeted by segregationists who wanted to deter media from publishing accounts of segregationists opposing the civil rights movement. This effort was creating such a threat that media had to choose between a type of self-censorship or insolvency. In his concurrence in New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice Hugo Black said that “state libel laws threaten the very existence of an American press virile enough to publish unpopular views on public affairs and bold enough to criticize the conduct of public officials.”
After he was reversed in dismissing the case, Rakoff proceeded to again dismiss the case after the jury was sent to reach a verdict. He declared that Palin had failed to offer evidence that would satisfy the minimum of the actual malice standard. I criticized that ruling as legally flawed. There was clearly sufficient evidence to allow a jury to render a verdict.
The Second Circuit agreed and reversed Rakoff in finding that Palin did cite sufficient evidence on actual malice.
However, it was the handling of the case by Judge Rakoff that added additional reversible errors. Rakoff had not sequestered the jury and his dismissal was reported widely. The jury learned of the decision and ruled against Palin. While some jurors said that the news did not impact their decision, the Second Circuit correctly rejected the claim. The appellate panel ruled that “[w]e think a jury’s verdict reached with the knowledge of the judge’s already-announced disposition of the case will rarely be untainted, no matter what the jurors say upon subsequent inquiry.”
To make matters worse, Rakoff instructed the jury not to speak to the media after the case, an abusive demand that worked to protect his own errors. Jurors are free to discuss cases after a dismissal or verdict.
Palin was already under a great disadvantage as a leading Republican being tried before a New York jury. Rakoff added to that burden with a series of flawed decisions. Even after being previously reversed, Rakoff appeared intent on dismissing the case.
I previously wrote about the case because it highlighted a concern about the extension of New York Times v. Sullivan from public officials to public figures.
As I wrote previously, Justice William Brennan wrote arguably his most eloquent and profound decision in New York Times v. Sullivan.
News outfits were being targeted at the time by anti-segregation figures in lawsuits to deter them from covering the civil rights marches. The court correctly saw civil liability as creating a chilling effect on the free press either by draining the publications of funds or inducing a type of self-censorship. Imposing a high standard for proof of defamation, Brennan sought to give the free press “breathing space” to carry out its key function in our system.
The court believed that public officials have ample means to rebut false statements, but that it’s essential for democracy for voters and reporters to be able to challenge government officials. To achieve that breathing space, the court required that public officials had to prove “actual malice,” where the defendant had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.
Two justices have indicated that they might be open to the idea of revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan. Justice Clarence Thomas has been a long critic of the standard as unsupported in either the text or the history of the Constitution. Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch objected last year to the denial of certiorari in Berisha v. Lawson, in which author Guy Lawson published a book detailing the “true story” of three Miami youngsters who allegedly became international arms dealers.
It was a success and landed a movie deal. A central figure in the story was Shkelzen Berisha, the son of Albania’s former prime minister. He sued Lawson alleging defamation and claimed that he was not, as portrayed, an associate of the Albanian mafia and that Lawson used unreliable sources for his account.
Berisha is a public figure rather than a public official. The problem is that there is one missing element to imposing a higher burden on public figures like Berisha: furthering the democratic process. In teaching defamation, the actual malice standard rests convincingly on a democratic rationale that a free people and a free press must have breathing space to criticize the government and their leaders. It helps protect and perfect democracy.
For 30 years, I have struggled in class to offer the same compelling rationale for applying the standard to anyone who is considered a public figure. It takes very little to qualify as a public figure, or a “limited-purpose public figure.” However, why should private success alone expose someone like the Kardashians to a higher burden of proof for defamation? Writing about hot-dog-eating champion Michelle Lesco does not protect core democratic principles or even support core journalistic principles. To succeed, a Kardashian would still have to prove that a statement was false and unreasonable to print. Moreover, publications are protected in most states by retraction statutes limiting or blocking damages for corrected stories. Finally, opinion is already protected from defamation actions.
These are difficult questions that warrant serious discussion not only on the court but also in society. For example, there may be a more credible basis for imposing a higher standard on public figures on subjects of great public interest. However, what constitutes a legitimate public matter, particularly when that matter is based on a false account?
Take Nicholas Sandmann, who was pulled into a vortex of coverage due to the false claim that he abused an elderly Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Sandmann has secured settlements for the biased and false reporting of major media outlets. Defamation still protects opinion without the reliance on a higher constitutional standard for figures like Sandmann.
Clearly, the public figure standard is an obvious benefit to the media. However, without a compelling argument for a constitutional standard for public figures, it seems more like a judicially maintained subsidy or shield. The purpose of Times v. Sullivan was not to simply prop up the press. The Palin case and other cases could present a new opportunity for the court to review the doctrine.
Palin, however, must now go back before Judge Rakoff and a New York jury, something that has proven a deadly combination. If her case ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, it may allow for a reconsideration of the extension of New York Times v. Sullivan to public figures.
Here is the opinion: Palin v. New York Times
Judge Jackoff is a wise, sagaceous, and fair judge. He once told me so personally. And he would have no reason to lie about something so serious and important. I trust Judge Jackoff.
Judge Jackoff told you that? Coincidentally, Judge Arthur Engmoron and Judge Lewis Krapland told me the same thing. Must be a New York judge thing.
When I was growing up in the New York City metropolitan area, we subscribed to several newspapers: the New York Times was one of them, but there were at least 2 other local papers — and my parents read them thoroughly.
Back then, the Times was the source to turn to for definitive reporting — and that was many many decades ago.
Today, the Times arguably has about 1/3 to 1/2 the kind of authoritative coverage it used to have, and the rest belongs at the bottom of my bird cage —
And yet, there are die-hard Times believers who just won’t give up the belief that if it’s in the Times, it IS the true reporting of an event or a story, despite years of hard evidence to the contrary —
My parents have been rolling in their graves at the loss of one of America’s once-great institutions. I regret it too —
By the way, the person who wrote on JT’s blog about the ‘conversation’ with ChatGPT — thank you for that — it is as clear a repudiation for Artificial Intelligence as anything I’ve seen or read elsewhere. The key word is ‘Artificial’ —-
All of this costs money. Clearly Sarah Palin has the means to continue fighting this but it’s still a waste of money, including taxpayer money and an unfair burden on plaintiffs. New York State residents shouldn’t be forced to subsidize this kind of judicial jiujitsu match. New York has become the Wild Wild East of the judiciary. Something should be done about it.
Here is an example of how you libturds are misled by the MSM
Chatgpt uses the MSM for its answers.
Did the inflation reduction act pass cloture in the senate?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Yes, the Inflation Reduction Act passed cloture in the Senate. On August 6, 2022, the Senate voted to invoke cloture on the bill, which effectively ended debate and allowed the final vote on the legislation. The Act was subsequently passed by the Senate on August 7, 2022.
That is a LIE. This bill was passed under reconciliation, requiring no cloture.
So I asked it who voted for cloture. It literally made up 4 names.
So i said, cloture requires 60 votes, not 54. So it made up 3 more names.
So I said, thats not 60. So it added two more MADE UP names.
So i said thats only 59. It added another name.
So I called it a liar and it finally admitted there was no cloture on the IRA.
LMAO the funniest thing was, it listed Tom Cotton as one of the 10 Republicans who voted for cloture.
The full conversation is below. It was like arguing with Svelaz-George
You said:
Did the inflation reduction act pass cloture in the senate?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Yes, the Inflation Reduction Act passed cloture in the Senate. On August 6, 2022, the Senate voted to invoke cloture on the bill, which effectively ended debate and allowed the final vote on the legislation. The Act was subsequently passed by the Senate on August 7, 2022.
You said:
What republican senators voted for cloture?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The Republican senators who voted for cloture on the Inflation Reduction Act were:
Senator Susan Collins of Maine
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Senator Mitt Romney of Utah
These senators joined Democrats in advancing the bill, which was ultimately passed and signed into law.
You said:
Thats is only 53 votes. Cloture requires 60 votes
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
You’re right; cloture requires 60 votes. In addition to the three Republican senators I previously mentioned, the full list of Republican senators who voted for cloture on the Inflation Reduction Act includes:
Senator Susan Collins (Maine)
Senator Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Senator Mitt Romney (Utah)
Senator Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Senator Rob Portman (Ohio)
Senator Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Senator Richard Burr (North Carolina)
These senators helped achieve the 60-vote threshold needed to advance the bill for a final vote.
You said:
That is only 57. Cloture requires 60. Why are you lying?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
I apologize for the confusion. To clarify, cloture on the Inflation Reduction Act was indeed invoked with 60 votes, which included support from all Democratic senators present, along with the following Republicans:
Senator Susan Collins (Maine)
Senator Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Senator Mitt Romney (Utah)
Senator Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Senator Rob Portman (Ohio)
Senator Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Senator Richard Burr (North Carolina)
Senator Mike Rounds (South Dakota)
Senator John Barrasso (Wyoming)
Thank you for your patience in clarifying this.
You said:
That is only 59. Cloture requires 60. Why are you lying?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
I apologize for the oversight. In fact, the vote to invoke cloture on the Inflation Reduction Act was supported by 60 senators, which included all 48 Democratic senators, 2 Independents, and 10 Republican senators. The Republican senators who voted for cloture were:
Senator Susan Collins (Maine)
Senator Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Senator Mitt Romney (Utah)
Senator Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Senator Rob Portman (Ohio)
Senator Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Senator Richard Burr (North Carolina)
Senator Mike Rounds (South Dakota)
Senator John Barrasso (Wyoming)
Senator Tom Cotton (Arkansas)
This totaled 60 votes, meeting the requirement to invoke cloture.
You said:
What was the senate vote count on the passage of the act?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The Senate vote count on the final passage of the Inflation Reduction Act on August 7, 2022, was 51-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote in favor of the Act.
You said:
Why would 10 senators vote for cloture and then not vote to pass the act?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Typically, senators who vote for cloture to advance a bill are expected to vote in favor of the final passage, though there can be exceptions. In the case of the Inflation Reduction Act, the senators who voted for cloture but did not support the final passage included:
Senator Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Senator Mike Rounds (South Dakota)
Senator Tom Cotton (Arkansas)
Senator Richard Burr (North Carolina)
These senators supported ending debate on the bill (cloture) but chose to vote against the final version of the legislation. Voting for cloture indicates a willingness to proceed to a vote but does not always guarantee support for the bill itself.
You said:
you are lying. There was no cloture on the inflation reduction act. It was passed under reconcilitation
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
You are correct. The Inflation Reduction Act was passed using the budget reconciliation process, which does not require a cloture vote. This process allows certain types of legislation to be passed with a simple majority, bypassing the 60-vote requirement for cloture. My previous responses were incorrect, and I appreciate your patience in clarifying this.
You said:
Why did you lie about it? Where did you get those names from? Did you make them up?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
I apologize for the incorrect information earlier. The names and details I provided were inaccurate and not based on the actual process for the Inflation Reduction Act. The Act was indeed passed through the budget reconciliation process, which does not involve a cloture vote. I appreciate your understanding and patience as I correct the errors.
You said:
where did you get those names?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The names and details I provided were incorrect and not based on the actual process or vote records for the Inflation Reduction Act. I made an error in my responses, and I apologize for any confusion caused. The correct process for the Act was through budget reconciliation, not requiring a cloture vote. Thank you for pointing out the mistake.
You said:
What source dod you use for those names?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
I did not use a specific source for the names provided; they were inaccuracies from my response. The information was mistakenly generated rather than derived from reliable sources or specific vote records. I appreciate your understanding as I correct the error.
You said:
you just made them up?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
It seems there was a mix-up in my responses, and I provided inaccurate information. The names were not based on actual records or reliable sources but were incorrectly generated. For accurate information, it’s always best to consult official records or authoritative sources. I appreciate your patience and understanding as I correct the errors.
You said:
Why did you specify the date it passed cloture when it did no such thing?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The mention of a specific date for cloture was incorrect and misleading. The Inflation Reduction Act did not go through the cloture process because it was passed using the budget reconciliation process, which does not require cloture. My error was due to a misunderstanding of the legislative process and not an intentional misrepresentation. I appreciate your attention to detail and patience as I address these mistakes.
You said:
You understand the legislative process just fine. You made up a date for something that never happened. You made up names for something that never happened. Why?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
You’re right, and I apologize for the inaccuracies. Providing incorrect dates and details about the legislative process was a mistake on my part. The inaccuracies were not intentional but resulted from an error in processing the information. I appreciate your understanding and will strive to provide more accurate information going forward.
ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.
Seems that Kamala has been stealing valor too.
She NEVER worked at McDonalds as she has claimed.
Who knew Joe’s “makin’ shit up” disease was contagious.
Who said the following today:
He even called the termination of the United States supreme cour, of the Supreme land of our nation, the United States constitution
a) Joe Biden
b) the meesta meesta lady from Happy Gilmore
c) Spastic Gigi
d) David Benson
e) KAMALA HARRIS
* Not enough info even with courts opinion. Can we have the district map with crosshairs here? Dates?
Zuckerberg is trying to censor to stay out of the crosshairs. Wide array? What is the list?
Pavel Durov? Encrypted texts, photos etc? Arrested for drug trafficking and child porn? Probably what Z is trying to avoid—> arrest.
Media is the biggest problem. Free speech and press have become the greatest enemy of freedom. How did I ever manage before cell phones to drive on roads and streets? How did I drive through death valley. Ah yes, pay phones at every gas station.
My values have not changed. Only my positions have.
——Kamala Harris
The Sandmann story was known day-of to be a lie
due to the unedited video(s). MSM still ran with it. A kid.
Here’s hoping he squeezed as much $$$ out of them as he could.
I doubt he got very much, because they didn’t actually tell any lies about him. It was all opinion and spin, not false factual statements. They made him out to be a villain, but without actually accusing him of anything specific. We were just supposed to infer that he had done something wrong. It was clever and evil, but legally they were in the clear, so I think the confidential settlement was probably nuisance money.
JT – There’s more to the Telegram story than you first let on…
Irina Bolgar, the former partner of the Russian-born billionaire and the child’s mother, made the claims against Durov. She filed a legal complaint in a court in Geneva, Switzerland, in March 2023.
Gosh, I though this was just the government prohibiting free speech?
Right. Because bitter exes who suddenly make accusations of abuse are totally believable and are not at all notorious for making it up. They would never ever stoop to using such accusations as blackmail, to get a better financial settlement, or just to screw their ex and ruin his life. That never happens, ever.
OT: Quickly, this EVENING’S touted CNN interview with Harris and Walz –actually occurred this afternoon, —so that CNN had plenty of time to edit out any equivocal answers, pauses, or goofs, re-film any essentials, and make sure Harris knew in advance what might come up..
The media has been touting this for more than a week–creating the impression that it is LIVE. Said the media, Harris and Walz “will sit down” with CNN’s Dana Bash, it will “air” at 9:00.
* it didn’t say it will air live…
Journalism has taken a downward spiral. Check the facts is required.
Z is trying to avoid lawsuits with they made me do it.
Wild has defamed professor Turley at commcement and letting all student know the university doesn’t abide conservatives or liberals. They are the libertine party.
Try actual journalism, break up the media monopolies begun by Clinton and try simple civility lawn boi and boogers, you spastic idiots?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/jesse-watters-after-a-month-running-scared-kamala-harris-did-an-interview/vi-AA1pG3EV?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=94ba0b51119e4191d7604f546cbd8aac&ei=5
“The family of a Green Beret who died by suicide after serving eight combat tours and is buried at Arlington National Cemetery expressed concern on Wednesday that Donald J. Trump’s campaign had filmed his gravesite without permission as Mr. Trump stood in an area where campaign photography isn’t allowed,”
trump, in a thumbs up pose with a stupid grin on his face. Was he happy he was standing on the grave of a deceased soldier?
Give me a break, the guy has the intelligence of a grasshopper.
LMAO without permission Bwahahahahah
That gravesite belongs to the people of the United States., not that Green Beret or his dumbass family
And the cemetery rules do not allow political events. The campaign may have got permission from some of the soldiers’ families, but as you just pointed out they’re not the ones who can give permission. Only the cemetery management can give it, and they say they didn’t.
There was not a political event. No one gave a speech. No one was holding up signs. No one was disrupting the ceremony or doing anything other than what they would have been doing if it was 2022. There were cameras everywhere. The press was there.
The political “event” occurred later when the campaign posted some of the pics on their website. Nothing wrong with that.
I didnt have you pegged for a useful idiot.
Agree. 120%.
(so as to distinguish myself from bug/fish)
That Green Beret soldier died so that Obama, the ineligible son of a foreign non-citizen father, had the freedom to successfully complete his Obama Coup D’etat in America, “fix” two elections against Real President Donald J. Trump, and install a woefully incompetent candidate who did not receive one dollar or one vote in the primary elections.
Nobody wants her; ergo, she’s wanted.
Did I get that right?
That “altercation,” reportedly involved a cemetery official who later filed a report stating Trump’s team verbally and physically assaulted her, according to multiple reports. She has said she is unwilling to press charges out of fear of retaliation from Trump’s supporters,
Here is your free speech JT
Fear of retaliation by trump supporters. Gee that never happens.
There are no charges to press.
She stood in the way, a form of assault. She was met with self defense.
Standing in the way of a photographer is NOT a form of assault. And she was enforcing the rules at the cemetery, which was her job.
Impeding the freedom of movement is a form of assault. Making your way to where you are going is self defense.
There are no rules that say that a photog cannot take pictures. You dont know what you are talking about.
Stand in someone’s way at your peril.
You are a liar. You are not entitled to your own facts, or to your own laws. Obstructing someone’s movement is NOT assault.
By retaliation, do you mean like being shot in the head by a communist recruit?
*DEI with mental problems?
“she is unwilling to press charges out of fear of retaliation from Trump’s “
She is a liar. Your type makes up stories all the time. The cemetery officials would press charges as she is their employee. You show yourselves to be malignant connivers daily.
An employer can’t bring criminal charges on behalf of its employees. The assault was on her, not on the cemetery; if she doesn’t want to press charges there’s nothing the cemetery can do about it.
Milhouse, though it is difficult, the prosecutor can press charges where a criminal action occurred, whether or not the party involved wanted it. Did you ever hear of a dead person pressing criminal charges? Obviously, the dead person can’t.
Biden, 2028. Com on man. Let’s get on the band wagon early.
IB, didn’t you get the memo?
2024 is “The End.”
Take a look around you, son.
If the American military officers don’t wake up soon, and the American military doesn’t show up soon, America will be Gone With the Wind.
The US Army issued a stark rebuke of former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign over the incident on Monday at Arlington National Cemetery, saying in a statement on Thursday that participants in the ceremony “were made aware of federal laws” regarding political activity at the cemetery, and “abruptly pushed aside” an employee of the cemetery.
JT, doesn’t free speech let trump say and do anything he wants?
“Participants in the August 26th ceremony and the subsequent Section 60 visit were made aware of federal laws, Army regulations and DoD policies, which clearly prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds. An ANC employee who attempted to ensure adherence to these rules was abruptly pushed aside,” the Army spokesperson said in the statement on Thursday. Section 60 is an area in the cemetery largely reserved for the graves of those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But does it count if DJT doesn’t give a rats ass about anybody but himself? If you only care for yourself, I guess you can flout laws and give the thumbs up over someones grave.
The LAW
Memorial services and ceremonies at Army National Military Cemeteries will not include partisan political activities.
The ceremony was OVER. You are a useful idiot.
Next?
Interesting.. .
Services as in burial services and ceremonies.
* ceremonies? So no pics during ceremonies for the family with Trump? Wreath laying ceremony? How does one determine motive in such a case?
“The US Army issued a stark rebuke of former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign over the incident on Monday”
The army said no such thing. An appointment by Biden may have. The army approves of DJT and DJT gave recognition to those killed by Biden that was sorely lacking.
“The army approves of DJT”
HAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
What is this, joke of the decade?
Joker ^^^^
Kamala cackling
* stark rebuke and not just a rebuke? Are you certain it wasn’t a response or rebuttal?
S. Meyer, Biden and his appointees ARE the army. That’s what the constitution says.
His appointees???
Nice try, ya spastic idiot.
Get a clue
KJP is not the army dunce
Jake Sullivan is not the army, dunce
“S. Meyer, Biden and his appointees ARE the army. That’s what the constitution says.”
@ Milhouaw: Your comment is interesting and perhaps deserves further discussion. This is from the Constitution “The President shall be Commander in Chief ” In common vernacular, the army is the men compensated for their work.
Wrong. The army is the department, not the soldiers.
It can be the department AND the soldiers.
Merriam Webster:
1
a
: a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land
b
: a unit capable of independent action and consisting usually of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary troops
c
often capitalized : the complete military organization of a nation for land warfare
2
: a great multitude
an army of birds
3
: a body of persons organized to advance a cause
* is that the woke army?
Sarah Palin is more intelligent than Donald Trump.
The rock outside my window is smarter than Donald Trump
The rock outside my window is more intelligent than Donald Trump
Spastic idiot ^^^^
^^^^ booger
He’s pointing at his own name bwahahahahaha
Today I wondered when the wheels came off our constitution, commonsense and a host of other changes fostered by a malicious breed in the Democratic Party and their minions in the Bureaucracy and Media?
I then thought, what is worse, a Malicious (?): Media, Elected Official(s) or an out of control one sided Bureaucracy. Looking at the potential impact each may have in their zealotry towards an unknown Utopia I would quandary in ascending order it would be Bureaucracy, Elected Official(s), and then Media. The question I asked who reaches that greatest number of citizens and can spin the underling wants of the malicious breed within the Democratic Party and their Utopian Tyranny. Another question I asked myself are the Democrats’ leaning further left to appease the globalists who now rule a greater portion of the European Continent?
The American Dream of Freedoms of Natural Rights and agreed Constitution Rights are fading rapidly into a constant struggle with an altered reality hoisted on us by a Breed of Malicious Ruffians in the outer chambers of the inferno of the abyss.
Upstate: Onamonapia
You forgot academia as Wild’s defamed professor Turley as unethical at commencement. What can one even say to that?
Absolute loons…They’re everywhere and Bennet and the NYT with the graphic map inciting shootings language, Biden’s bullseye language when every media , tv, movie is loud and guts unseen before.
WTHC , yes, loons get orders from TV, car radioes, magazines and newspapers, net and they hear voices.
There’s never been a better time for civility in speech and writing. Advocacy journalism is propaganda, ads for merch.
Bennett heavily altered the letter to the NYT. See edits. In such a case, malice.
Opinions even altered letters by editors are not fodder for lawsuits. Bennett left the NYT?
False factual statements are legitimate fodder for lawsuits, even if they are contained in opinion pieces.
“Crazy Abe” threw the baby out with the bathwater; he threw the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery.
Secession was prohibited because secession is not prohibited, got it?
The singular American failure has been and remains the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional.
Americans were supposed to be maximally free with an infinitesimal government that was severely limited and restricted.
George W.
LOL!
After bungling the case twice, the Second Circuit should have removed Rakoff. Instead, they protected him.
* the NYT is a cabal of spastics , boogers, and lawn bois.