I wonder if, just perhaps, part of the thinking behind the offer to settle was concern that if the case went to the Extreme Court after it was tossed out on summary judgment, the court--particularly given how servile it is to Trump--would reverse NY Times v. Sullivan, greatly weakening the press' right of inquiry. Now, was that a reason?…
I wonder if, just perhaps, part of the thinking behind the offer to settle was concern that if the case went to the Extreme Court after it was tossed out on summary judgment, the court--particularly given how servile it is to Trump--would reverse NY Times v. Sullivan, greatly weakening the press' right of inquiry. Now, was that a reason? Or a rationalization? Or was it not thought about at the corporate offices? (And, by the way, TC, I'm not at all sure that Trump's other sexual assaults could have been brought up at the deposition. I don't see how they come under even the broad standard of relevance--somewhat narrowed in the past couple of years--that applies to discovery in lawsuits. If one of them had been raised, Trump's lawyers would have demanded that the deposition be halted so that they could seek a ruling from the judge. If the judge ruled the question proper, Trump would have sought to appeal, which he should not be able to do, but the rules have been bent before.)
I wonder if, just perhaps, part of the thinking behind the offer to settle was concern that if the case went to the Extreme Court after it was tossed out on summary judgment, the court--particularly given how servile it is to Trump--would reverse NY Times v. Sullivan, greatly weakening the press' right of inquiry. Now, was that a reason? Or a rationalization? Or was it not thought about at the corporate offices? (And, by the way, TC, I'm not at all sure that Trump's other sexual assaults could have been brought up at the deposition. I don't see how they come under even the broad standard of relevance--somewhat narrowed in the past couple of years--that applies to discovery in lawsuits. If one of them had been raised, Trump's lawyers would have demanded that the deposition be halted so that they could seek a ruling from the judge. If the judge ruled the question proper, Trump would have sought to appeal, which he should not be able to do, but the rules have been bent before.)
That's a very interesting question. We know Trump has talked relentlessly about "opening up" defamation law.
And his good bud Clarence Thomas is already on board.