The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to review a challenge to its landmark New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas has some thoughts.

The 1964 ruling established limits on public officials’ ability to sue on grounds of defamation, as well as the need to prove a standard of “actual malice” by the outlet making the allegedly defamatory statements.

The Supreme Court declined to hear Blankenship v. NBC Universal, LLC, a lawsuit brought by coal magnate Don Blankenship, who in 2015 was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of conspiring to violate safety standards at a Virginia mine where an explosion killed 29 workers. Blankenship was sentenced to a year in prison and fined $250,000. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Blankenship then sued NBC Universal, alleging that the news company had defamed him by describing him as a “felon.” Lower courts ruled that NBC had not acted with “malice” in their statements, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

While Justice Thomas concurred that Blankenship’s case did not require a ruling by the Supreme Court, he called for the justices to review the standard set by New York Times v. Sullivan “in an appropriate case.”

“I continue to adhere to my view that we should reconsider the actual-malice standard,” Thomas wrote,” referencing his previous opinion in Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Southern Poverty Law Center. “New York Times and the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,” he added, “the actual-malice standard comes at a heavy cost, allowing media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’”

The push from Thomas comes amid widespread media reporting on allegations of corruption and improper financial relationships involving the justice. A series of investigations by ProPublica and The New York Times have uncovered unreported gifts, real estate deals, and luxury perks given to Thomas by high-profile conservative figures — many of which were not reported in financial disclosures, or weighed as conflicts of interest in relevant cases.

In April, ProPublica reported on the extent of Thomas’ relationship with billionaire Harlan Crow. The real estate mogul gifted Thomas frequent rides on private jets, vacations to luxury resorts, and trips on his superyachts. Crow also purchased $133,000 in real estate from Thomas, and footed private school tuition bills for a child Thomas was raising.

Subsequent reporting has exposed Thomas’ relationship with other powerful conservative players, including the Koch brothers, oil tycoon Paul “Tony” Novelly, H. Wayne Huizenga, the former owner of the Miami Dolphins, and investor David Sokol.

Thomas has claimed that the omissions from his financial statements were nothing more than oversights and that he had been advised that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1501 year ago

    It’s not a surprise, the Republicans are following the “How to Fascist: for Dummies” step by step book

    • Gaim
      link
      fedilink
      581 year ago

      And some Americans are just letting it happen, its kinda sad :/

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              121 year ago

              I remember when conservatives were loud and proud about “Better dead than red”, now they cant even scream cause they got Putins big red hammer down their throats.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                0
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Russia isn’t “red” (communist) anymore, which is what they objected to. Russia is now fascist, which they love. As much as you might like to believe otherwise, there’s nothing inconsistent about their behavior.

      • SuiXi3D
        link
        fedilink
        171 year ago

        What would you suggest we do? I’ve voted against this crap to no avail. I’ve supported causes to no avail. Nothing short of a very ugly, bloody revolution will change this, and likely not for the better.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          91 year ago

          If you look at Turkey or Hungary over the last decade, people were pissed when their governments became overreaching, but ultimately their authoritarian governments won and the people had little choice, no civil war, no grand uprising of the people. The US is going in the same direction and I doubt anything will happen that can stop it. But on the flip side dictators never last forever. Their power will wain and fall. But for most of us, that will last our entire lifetime, which is an awful future no one should be celebrating.

        • deaf_fish
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Don’t give up my friend. Things suck for sure, but we have a little power left. Spread ideas, organize your community, organize your workplace, go vote for the least fascist of the candidates.

          We probably can’t save ourselves, but we can build a solid platform for others to use. Something about old men planting trees…

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    951 year ago

    “Thomas wants to silence people who make him look bad and might restrict his sugar daddy from giving him money.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      391 year ago

      Pretty much. He wants to be able to sue newspapers with impunity for writing about him and even if he doesn’t win he hopes to get the courts to agree to keep them from writing about him long enough it becomes irrelevant. It’s disgusting and disturbing coming from a judge sitting on the highest court. And any currently sitting Supreme Court Justice not speaking out against Thomas and requesting his resignation is complicit in his actions.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    731 year ago

    Conservatives will strip you of every right you have as long as they can get away with it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    561 year ago

    This would backfire so hard on the Republicans.

    Fox News would go down in flames. Every conservative news outlet would be sued out of existence. Their entire media ecosystem is based on demonstrable lies.

    Meanwhile actual newspapers would be laughing their asses off as court after court found that their stories were firmly based on observable reality.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      221 year ago

      Except the courts that are stacked with Federalist Society judges…

      The right has been working a long game to fuck over the country. And got a big shortcut when McConnell blocked Obama’s nominee.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          101 year ago

          Bench trials most certainly do, and appeals courts all the way up to the Supreme Court are bench (judge) deciding the outcome.

            • Doubletwist
              link
              fedilink
              61 year ago

              Which are packed with conservative judges who happily twist their interpretation of to serve their partisan views.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    371 year ago

    coal magnate Don Blankenship, who in 2015 was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of conspiring to violate safety standards at a Virginia mine where an explosion killed 29 workers

    Blankenship then sued NBC Universal, alleging that the news company had defamed him by describing him as a “felon.”

    Eat shit, Bob!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    361 year ago

    Every statement from Clarence Thomas for the rest of time should end with, “…at least that’s what the people who bought me this boat said I should say.”

    Can someone smarter than I please make this browser extension?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    311 year ago

    I expect the Republicans to do nothing about this corrupt asshole. The lack of any kind of pushback from the Dems is worrying.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      191 year ago

      There is pushback, but if they try to do things in a legalistic manner, these things take time. Biden was very publicly setting the stage for further steps just a few days ago: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/oct/01/biden-supreme-court-maga

      The democrats could follow the example of the republicans and abandon all norms and decency, which would allow them to play the game on a more equal playing field with the republicans, but in doing so, they would become what they are trying to stop.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They’d also be 30 years behind in stacking the courts and regulatory agencies with patsies.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          91 year ago

          If the shoe was on the other foot, then it would not surprise me one bit if the republicans tried storming the supreme court with a mob. Once you throw out norms and conventions and just stick to the pretense of them when it is convenient for you, then a lot becomes possible.

          But if the democrats try to actually do things in a legalistic manner, that will take time. I’m already very relieved that they are at last publicly calling out the fascist behaviours of the extreme right media and republican party. For too long they have been pretending that it was all business as usual, while the USA democracy has already been in decline for decades.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Curious what pushback you’d like to see from Dems? I’ve heard many condemn him, but no actions taken, I assume because none are viable.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Why did “Dems” quickly become Biden? Is it because you found numerous quotes from Democratic Senators like Whitehouse and Van Hollen taking him to task? Biden criticized Thomas after his comments on contraception and marriage equality.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        I haven’t heard much condemnation, maybe you’re more plugged in than I am. Has Biden even mentioned Thomas’ corruption?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    311 year ago

    Of course he does. Fascist gonna fascist. He stated he wants to stick it to the liberals. Its his reason for getting up in the morning.

  • Cyrus Draegur
    link
    fedilink
    English
    251 year ago

    But who is going to go after Clarence Thomas? That’s the more important question.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      unless you get a super majoirty of dems in the Senate, the chances of Thomas being impeached is zero.

      • Cyrus Draegur
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        Y-yes, correct; for legal reasons, impeachment is definitely, certainly, absolutely the only thing I am referring to.

  • mechoman444
    link
    fedilink
    231 year ago

    Of course! We don’t need freedom of the press! What we need is a special department that is able to change headlines at a moments notice so even past news can be changed! That way we can have an inner party within the government comprised of loyalists and patriots monitoring the proletarian masses for dissonance and inappropriate thoughts.

    Heh. For some reason I have suddenly become deathly afraid of rats…

  • Blackout
    link
    fedilink
    191 year ago

    when this guy dies i’m totally going to shit on his grave

  • TechyDad
    link
    fedilink
    181 year ago

    If they remove protections for the press, how long until FOX News goes into bankruptcy following a flood of defamation lawsuits? (Plus Newsmax, OAN, and other right wing “news organizations.”)

    Removing freedom of the press cuts both ways.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      20
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Removing freedom of the press cuts both ways.

      Except when the judiciary is compromised.

  • skulblaka
    link
    fedilink
    141 year ago

    This is the same guy who is in an interracial marriage and voted to illegalize interracial marriage. He literally can’t be trusted with anything.

    • chaogomu
      link
      fedilink
      201 year ago

      He didn’t vote to make interracial marriage illegal. That’s not come before the court (and likely will not, because people would actually flip the fuck out)

      No, what Thomas did was write a dissent in Obergefell that tried to create a make believe difference between the historical precedent of marriage being only between a man and a woman, and the historical precedent of interracial marriage being just as illegal as gay marriage.

      He says that what he does is fine and should be celebrated, but if people he doesn’t like, do the same, they should rot in prison or be chemically castrated. (Both historically used punishments for being gay)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Close, he was saying these cases were susceptible to being overturned if they weren’t reinforced with legislation. For fifty years, Roe was called a bad judicial decision, even by Joe Biden and needed to be solidified in legislation. This is the danger of the courts “legislating from the bench” instead of just deciding constitutionality.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      You’re thinking of Mitch McConnell. Thomas wrote in his opinion on overturning Roe v Wade that it should also be considered to overturn gay marriage and access to certain birth control methods, but left out anything about interracial marriage.