Scott Johnson Lauds The Guy Who Wanted To Toss The Defense To Libel Laws Out.

Twice in recent columns, Scott Johnson has heaped praise on a guy whose judicial opinions (thankfully primarily in losing, dissenting opinions) read like InfoWars or Alex Jones’ podcasts.

Or like… Fox or Brietbart. [And as irony would have it, each of those have lost huge libel verdicts, even with all the protection of NYT v. Sullivan — their lies being found by the courts to have been offered with “actual malice.”]

Charming — but not proper, as discourse — as a form of complaint, inside judicial rulings (at page 21 — in dissent):

…Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s… Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.

As has become apparent, Silicon Valley also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news. And it similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party. See Kaitlyn Tiffany, Twitter Goofed It, The Atlantic (2020) (“Within a few hours, Facebook announced that it would limit [a New York Post] story’s spread on its platform while its third-party fact-checkers somehow investigated the information.…

He also wanted to declare Bivens a nullity (where the FBI arrested, beat and stripped a black man in his home — solely for his skin color — suggesting such conduct was not problematic, as a matter of law). He felt the FBI agents deserved near absolute immunity. Sheesh. Again, thankfully, a strong majority of the Supremes (then and now, excepting only Clarence Thomas, feel Bivens is good law).

And he felt — like Tangerine, and Hinderaker — that the protections of NYT v. Sullivan should vanish — utterly… surreally equating a free press to Soviet era Brezhnev policy.

This is also the guy who (with two others) met with Iranian officials (then an enemy government) to hear about a “deal” — a deal to have Iran delay a hostage release (in return for US-made arms), if such a deal would help defeat Jimmy Carter and seal the election of Ron Reagan, in 1979-1980.

Yeh.

Not someone to… lionize, boys. Even in death. Your Murdoch / Fox tail/tale is… showing.

Out.