Judge: No 'speck' of proof in Palin's libel case against NYT

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

NEW YORK — The judge who presided over Sarah Palin’s libel case against The New York Times denied her request Tuesday for a new trial, saying she failed to introduce “even a speck” of evidence necessary to prove actual malice by the newspaper.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff made the assertion in a written decision as he rejected post-trial claims from Palin’s lawyers.

Her attorneys had asked the judge to grant a new trial or disqualify himself as biased against her, citing several evidentiary rulings by Rakoff that they said were errors. Those ranged from how the questioning of jurors occurred during jury selection, to how jurors were instructed when they asked questions during deliberations.

“In actuality, none of these was erroneous, let alone a basis for granting Palin a new trial,” the judge said.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/31/sarah-palin-speck-proof-libel-00036233

[lastlib]

1. That's going to provoke a word-vomit.....

from the Queen of Babble-On.....Listen for the gurgling noise......

[EYESORE 9001]

4. Argle bargle

For starters.

[Mr. Sparkle]

2. She should be fined for wasting the court's time

and been a general idiot.

[Emile]

3. Palin's NYTimes defamation case could cost up to $6M if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10515111/Judge-threw-Palin-libel-claim-against-NYT-says-jury-secret-decision.html

[Novara]

5. So they don't know who is paying the bills

I say follow the money.

[Calista241]

7. Who cares about money. This is the most consequential case potentially on the horizon for the SC.

More than Roe, more than Gun Control, more than voting rights. If the Supreme Court takes this case, the media as we know it will change, and look who's on the Court right now. Would you bet on them upholding the status quo for journalists and media organizations?

[Ursus Rex]

10. Many people (who know more about this that I do) think that is now the entire point of this case.

Get it to the USSC and let the activists there rewrite the 1st Amendment.

[FakeNoose]

8. Yes, and censure or penalize the lawyers too

Disbarring would be a little harsh, I guess. But those lawyers need to be spanked and sent to the "time out" corner.
Let them regret ever doing business with Sarah Palin.

[ificandream]

9. Just imagine how much that fine would be ...

... if her idiocy was measured since McCain made her a household name?

Thank you, Tina Fey.

[Calista241]

6. I suspect Palin's goal isn't to win on the merits

but to get the Supreme Court to revisit NYT v. Sullivan, which protects the rights of journalists, even if they are later proven wrong.

[ificandream]

11. Sarah's too stupid to do anything but make noise.

And yeah, you may be right, but she needs a case to get there. And I don't think it'll happen.