Page 26 - Second Amendment Case News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Times v. sullivan the first amendment would prevent public officials to sue the media under any standard left demanding actual malice and can you explain to the people here today in those watching on tv what that standard means to you? >> new york times versus sullivan was a landmark decision. it changed pretty dramatically the law of defamation libel in this country. rather than the common law definition of libel, applicable normally for a long time. the supreme court said the first amendment has special meaning and protection. we're talking about the media, the press in covering public offic...

Now. no. justice kagan and justice scalia wrote a dissent, saying fish, that's a tangible object. you shouldn't have done it. and so these things don't divide along any kind of ordinary ideological line. i am confident that there are justices who in that case or in heller or any of these cases would as a matter of policy have come out differently than they did as a matter of judging. and that to me is all the difference in the world. we're not doing what we would like or what we think the law is. >> let's turn to another topic. some of my colleagues on the democratic side have raised some ques...

Understanding. that informs us. in the fifth amendment, justice stephens, wrote a very fine examination of the original history of the constitution and said, it's not right that an individual should be sentenced to prison on the basis of facts a jury hasn't found. those are all originalists. if you want to put that label on it, every one of them. look at powell versus mccormack. it's a very careful -- might agree or disagree -- a very careful examination of the original history and understanding of the relevant provisions of the constitution. or heller, second amendment case. justice scalia an...

Gorsuch think about this one? and you were expected to have a view about pretty much anything and everything that he asked. he just would sit there and chuckle at you. he would laugh at you. you're wondering what he thought. he never reveal ed his hands. he would walk out of the office and say oh, that's what justice gorsuch thinks. okay. then he would go back and think about it himself. then he would come back in himself. the whole thing would repeat itself as he was working through each case himself. he would want to bounce ideas off of this know-nothing 20 something-year-old kid. that to me...

Originalist seemed to betray constitutional text and history, most notable brown versus board of education the case that struck down segregation. but it's hard to reconcile with original understanding. judge gorsuch said i want to translate the original meaning into a world of new technologies. he kept citg the gps case the 19th century horse and buggy age. but the democrats are going to press him and say do you agree with the cases where justice scalia was a fatless originalist. >> do you see any reason, jeffrey in what we've seen and heard so far from neil gorsuch, that this won't be -- not ...