A Patriot Lawyer Writes "Don’t Take the Black Pill—Keep Fighting the NYT!"
Print Friendly and PDF

Re: A Blackpilled Reader Wonders If Our NYT Lawsuit Isn't Just Coming At Them In "The Same Old Way"—We Say It's Something New!

From: Fabrizio Evola [Email him]
I read the recent letter from one of your readers about his pessimism towards your lawsuit against the New York Times. I understand the frustration, but there are reasons to be hopeful. I ultimately agree with you that somebody will break the dam that is NYT v. Sullivan.
One reason to be hopeful is an opinion [PDF] from Justice Clarence Thomas early last year denying review of a libel case. In that opinion, Justice Thomas indicated that he might overrule NYT v. Sullivan in a future case. The Left was apoplectic about this opinion. [If You Don't Value New York Times v. Sullivan, You'd Better Start, Because Clarence Thomas Is Gunning for It, by Jay Michaelson, Daily Beast, February 19, 2019]
This reminds me of another opinion written by Justice Thomas that was eventually adopted by the High Court. In 1997, Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in Printz v U.S. stating that the Second Amendment protected the individual right to own a firearm. This was a minority position at the time, but it helped shift the public debate. Enterprising conservative lawyers picked up on this opinion and steadily advanced their cause, culminating in the Heller and McDonald decisions that correctly interpreted the Second Amendment.
This legal development, along with the continued brazenness of the Left’s dishonesty, is demonstrative that this is not analogous to Einstein’s alleged definition of insanity. There are real changes taking place, and a major opportunity to correct a major legal wrong.

See earlier letters from the same reader.

Print Friendly and PDF