by Andrea Widburg
Everybody is rightly excited about the judge’s attack on our propaganda media, but his attack on the Supreme Court itself is actually more interesting.
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:
In
this defamation action, two former Liberian officials allege that
Global Witness, an international human rights organization, published a
report falsely implying that they had accepted bribes in connection with
the sale of an oil license for an offshore plot owned by Liberia. The
district court dismissed the complaint for failing to plausibly allege
actual malice. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm. The
First Amendment provides broad protections for speech about public
figures, and the former officials have failed to allege that Global
Witness exceeded the bounds of those protections.
The Supreme Court first enunciated those “broad protections for speech about public figures” in 1964, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
In brief, it held that, if a public official or political candidate
wants to succeed in a defamation claim, she or she cannot merely prove
the elements of a defamation cause of action (i.e., publicly
disseminated defamatory statements) but must also prove that whoever
made the statement acted with actual malice. “Actual malice” means
knowing the statement was false or recklessly disregarding its falsity.
As a result of that decision, public officials stopped suing the media,
so much so that they no longer sue even when obvious actual malice is
present.
Judge Silberman wrote a dissent challenging not only how the majority applied New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to
the case before it but also challenging the entirety of the Supreme
Court decision. It’s this last aspect that makes Silberman’s dissent
noteworthy.
Silberman points out that “Justice Thomas has already persuasively demonstrated that New York Times
was a policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law. *** As
with the rest of the opinion, the actual malice requirement was simply
cut from whole cloth.”
Although Silberman acknowledges the difficulty inherently in overruling “landmark” cases, he has come to see the 57-year-old New York Times opinion as “a threat to American Democracy. It must go.” And then Silberman goes into overdrive defending the Constitution.
He
makes plain his disdain for Justice Kennedy’s contention that
“criticism of the Court is tantamount to an attack on the Constitution.”
Instead, “I readily admit that I have little regard for holdings of the
Court that dress up policymaking in constitutional garb.” It’s that
kind of dissimulation that is “the real attack on the Constitution.”
Indeed, “[t]he notion that the Court should somehow act in a policy role
as a Council of Revision is illegitimate.”
What
Silberman has written is incredibly important. The Supreme Court,
unlike the Pope, is not God’s representative on earth (at least for
Catholics). It’s a collection of lawyers, with those from the left being
highly politicized. These same leftist lawyers pretend that they are,
in fact, infallible, making their decisions indistinguishable from the
Constitution itself – and as unassailable.
What
lies behind Silberman’s attacking the imaginary doctrine of Supreme
Court infallibility is the Court’s 67-year history of deciding cases on
purely political grounds, while pretending that the Constitution is
controlling. The most famous of these cases for conservatives is Roe v. Wade which found a constitutional right to abortion hidden in the Constitution’s emanations and penumbras.
However, the same “make it up as you go along” philosophy really began with a truly righteous case: Brown v. Board of Education.
There was nothing in the Constitution to bar the heinous practice of
academic segregation (one that Democrats are again embracing), so the
Supreme Court, to advance a moral public policy, made up constitutional
law. When doing so worked, the Supreme Court was off to the races. It
now makes up imaginary constitutional rights on a regular basis. Just
think of the Obergefell decision, in which Kennedy wrote a romance novel to find a constitutional right to gay marriage.
On
the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas clearly understands that Supreme
Court infallibility is a false doctrine and Justice Alito probably does,
too. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett may understand the
principle. The remaining justices quite definitely do not. Until all the
justices recognize that they’re merely fancy lawyers, with none having a
claim to the papal throne, America will continue to fall victim to the
fake constitutionality of an activist court.
(If
you want to read about Silberman’s excellent attack on the unholy
alliance between the media, Big Tech, and the Democrat party, I
recommend Mollie Hemingway’s Twitter thread.)
IMAGE: By Andrea Widburg, using a public domain image.
Andrea Widburg
Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/a_federal_appellate_judge_challenged_supreme_court_infallibility.html
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment