Author Topic: Alito pens fiery dissent after court declines to hear dispute between climate professor, National Re  (Read 959 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued a fiery defense of free speech Monday morning as the high court announced it would not hear an appeal from the conservative magazine National Review in a defamation case against it by liberal climate science professor Michael Mann.

Mann's case against the magazine stems from his creation of the infamous "hockey stick graph" and a central role in the "Climategate" scandal -- in which his employer, Penn State University, eventually cleared him of wrongdoing.

The National Review published an op-ed that called his graph -- which displays earth's temperature increasing seemingly exponentially beginning right around the industrial revolution -- "deceptive" and "fraudulent" over its substitution of certain types of data for thermometer readings for time periods before thermometers were available. The magazine called for an investigation into Mann and doubled down on its stance in subsequent writings.

"If the speech in all these cases had been held to be unprotected, our Nation's system of self-government would not have been seriously threatened," Alito wrote after naming several recent cases in which the Supreme Court upheld controversial speech, including the trade name "F-U-C-T" for a clothing company. "But ... the protection of even speech as trivial as a naughty trademark for jeans can serve an important purpose: It can demonstrate that this Court is deadly serious about protecting freedom of speech."

<snip>

"If citizens cannot speak freely and without fear about the most important issues of the day, real self-government is not possible," he said. "To ensure that our democracy is preserved and is permitted to flourish, this Court must closely scrutinize any restrictions on statements that can be made on important public policy issues. Otherwise, such restrictions can easily be used to silence the expression of unpopular views."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alito-climate-science-professor-national-review
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline catfish1957

  • Laken Riley.... Say her Name. And to every past and future democrat voter- Her blood is on your hands too!!!
  • Political Researcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,461
  • Gender: Male
Mann's bogus work has already been discredited enough in meteorlogical circles, without any SCOTUS help.  Wrong hill NR.
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Mann's bogus work has already been discredited enough in meteorlogical circles, without any SCOTUS help.  Wrong hill NR.

IIRC it's not really NR's hill they are trying to die on...Mann is suing them for defamation if I remember correctly simply because they wrote an article critical of his bogus hockey stick.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline catfish1957

  • Laken Riley.... Say her Name. And to every past and future democrat voter- Her blood is on your hands too!!!
  • Political Researcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,461
  • Gender: Male
IIRC it's not really NR's hill they are trying to die on...Mann is suing them for defamation if I remember correctly simply because they wrote an article critical of his bogus hockey stick.

Damn!!!!   He's getting to sue them for that fiasco?  That's like Jeffery's Dahmer suing a vicitm's family for food poisoning.
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Damn!!!!   He's getting to sue them for that fiasco?  That's like Jeffery's Dahmer suing a vicitm's family for food poisoning.

Yup he sure is.  No one is to question the great and powerful Mann....

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/michael-mann-lawsuit-national-review-first-amendment/
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Supreme Court refuses to hear case involving climate scientist's lawsuit
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2019, 03:11:21 pm »

Supreme Court refuses to hear case involving climate scientist's lawsuit
By John Kruzel - 11/25/19 10:04 AM EST
 

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up an appeal involving a prominent climate scientist who sued an iconic conservative magazine and libertarian think tank for defamation.

In a closely watched request to the Supreme Court, the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute asked the justices to intervene in a suit brought against them by scientist Michael Mann. The case, which pits climate scientists against the free speech rights of global warming skeptics, drew interest from lawmakers, interest groups, academics and media.

The Supreme Court’s denial means at least four justices declined to take on the case, which is required to grant an appeal. Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s decision to decline the case.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/471878-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-appeal-in-case-involving-climate