Seems to me SCOTUS already suffers from a poor jurisprudence history that the maga six have brought on the court.
I think they'd at least try to keep their low rep from getting even lower over having blown past historical legal precedents.
Their immunity misruling was egregious enough. But to overturn the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan would seriously weaken free speech protections. Do they really want to work to make it much easier for public officials to win libel suits against journalists and critics by removing the high "actual malice" standard (requiring proof of knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth), malice being pretty much the state of politics and journalism these days? Do they want to heap more case overload on the courts as lawsuits become weapons for journalism suppression?
Could they possibly want less journalism that uncovers an opaque government when the country right now needs even more?
I daresay it's Dershowitz's poor rep vs SCOTUS's poor rep.
Edit history
Recommendations
2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read