Thanks for sharing the piece. I would say, though, that the Herald had no idea I was publishing this farewell column. There has been zero oversight in what I’ve put in the paper for more than two years now. It didn’t go onto a page or into the system until everyone else was gone Friday night. Probably not my finest move, but I felt OK publishing the truth and going about it without naming names (though names not mentioned might speak just as loud).
I give the Herald credit for not deleting the column online. But the reason I feel that hasn’t happened is probably because nobody there read it. They haven’t read any of my work - unless it ran on 1A - in a long time.
I thought Gorsuch is an advocate for reading the Constitution as it was read at the time it was written. How does consideration of changes between 1964 and today fit into that?
His first citation is from Jefferson in the dissent. Later goes to quote Blackstone and say: "this was “[t]he accepted view” in this Nation for more than two centuries. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U. S. 153, 158– 159, and n. 4 (1979). Accordingly, “from the very founding” the law of defamation was “almost exclusively the business of state courts and legislatures.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 369–370 (1974) (White, J., dissenting). As a rule, that meant all persons could recover damages for injuries caused by false publications about them. See Kur- land, The Original Understanding of the Freedom of the Press Provision of the First Amendment, 55 Miss. L. J. 225, 234–237 (1985); J. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History 474–475 (5th ed. 2019); Epstein, Was New York Times v. Sullivan Wrong? 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 782, 801–802 (1986); Peck v. Tribune Co., 214 U. S. 185, 189 (1909). This changed only in 1964. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964), this Court declared that public officials could no longer recover for defamation as everyone had for centuries." https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/02/politics/read-thomas-gorsuch-writings/index.html
"From the very beginning" everything was exclusively the business of state courts and legislatures. My point is not that Gorsuch has a right to his own opinion, and considering that he is a justice and I am not his opinion carries a lot more weight. My point is that there is a basic hypocrisy involved in shrouding these opinions in the words of the framers. At the beginning there was nothing in the Constitution which said the Court could declare an act of Congress, signed by the President, to be null and void. There still isn't. Was Marbury wrongly decided? So, was Sullivan wrong? Or is it just wrong in the era of social media? I believe the Constitution says what five of the justices say it says at any given time. I wonder if Gorsuch realizes the "press" most likely, admittedly in my opinion, to face the force of defamation lawsuits by public officials are the Fox channels and conservative talk radio hosts?
Thanks for sharing the piece. I would say, though, that the Herald had no idea I was publishing this farewell column. There has been zero oversight in what I’ve put in the paper for more than two years now. It didn’t go onto a page or into the system until everyone else was gone Friday night. Probably not my finest move, but I felt OK publishing the truth and going about it without naming names (though names not mentioned might speak just as loud).
I give the Herald credit for not deleting the column online. But the reason I feel that hasn’t happened is probably because nobody there read it. They haven’t read any of my work - unless it ran on 1A - in a long time.
😬
I thought Gorsuch is an advocate for reading the Constitution as it was read at the time it was written. How does consideration of changes between 1964 and today fit into that?
His first citation is from Jefferson in the dissent. Later goes to quote Blackstone and say: "this was “[t]he accepted view” in this Nation for more than two centuries. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U. S. 153, 158– 159, and n. 4 (1979). Accordingly, “from the very founding” the law of defamation was “almost exclusively the business of state courts and legislatures.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 369–370 (1974) (White, J., dissenting). As a rule, that meant all persons could recover damages for injuries caused by false publications about them. See Kur- land, The Original Understanding of the Freedom of the Press Provision of the First Amendment, 55 Miss. L. J. 225, 234–237 (1985); J. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History 474–475 (5th ed. 2019); Epstein, Was New York Times v. Sullivan Wrong? 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 782, 801–802 (1986); Peck v. Tribune Co., 214 U. S. 185, 189 (1909). This changed only in 1964. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964), this Court declared that public officials could no longer recover for defamation as everyone had for centuries." https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/02/politics/read-thomas-gorsuch-writings/index.html
"From the very beginning" everything was exclusively the business of state courts and legislatures. My point is not that Gorsuch has a right to his own opinion, and considering that he is a justice and I am not his opinion carries a lot more weight. My point is that there is a basic hypocrisy involved in shrouding these opinions in the words of the framers. At the beginning there was nothing in the Constitution which said the Court could declare an act of Congress, signed by the President, to be null and void. There still isn't. Was Marbury wrongly decided? So, was Sullivan wrong? Or is it just wrong in the era of social media? I believe the Constitution says what five of the justices say it says at any given time. I wonder if Gorsuch realizes the "press" most likely, admittedly in my opinion, to face the force of defamation lawsuits by public officials are the Fox channels and conservative talk radio hosts?