The Conservative Push to Sue the Media Into Oblivion
Mar 10, 2025
auto_awesome
David Enrich, an investigative reporter for The New York Times and author of "Murder the Truth," joins the discussion on the alarming trends targeting media accountability. He dives into the conservative push against the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, exploring its implications for press freedom. The conversation also touches on the dangers posed by misinformation and the legal battles surrounding media credibility. Enrich highlights the necessity for individuals to counteract these narratives while advocating for robust journalism.
The Supreme Court's recent rulings demonstrate a concerning trend toward judicial overreach, particularly in the realm of executive power.
Mexico's lawsuit against American gun manufacturers underscores critical debates on corporate accountability and public safety amidst ongoing cartel violence.
Potential changes to the New York Times v. Sullivan standard raise significant concerns for press freedoms and the future of investigative journalism.
Deep dives
Cats and Nutritional Needs
Cats have unique dietary requirements that reflect their evolutionary background as hunters. Unlike many domesticated pets, cats derive essential nutrients from fresh protein sources rather than traditional dry kibble. Smalls cat food is designed to address these needs, providing preservative-free recipes made with high-quality ingredients that resemble those found in a human diet. The switch to such a diet has reportedly led to notable health improvements in 88% of cat owners after using Smalls.
Political Climate and Court Commentary
The political landscape surrounding the Supreme Court has become increasingly contentious, marked by recent remarks from notable figures like Donald Trump. During a lengthy address to Congress, Trump misquoted decisions and exaggerated claims regarding federal policies on diversity and inclusion, claiming a substantial shift in hiring practices encouraged by the Supreme Court. It is essential to clarify that the ruling in Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard pertains specifically to higher education admissions and does not broadly impact federal or private sector hiring practices. This misrepresentation requires ongoing dialogue to accurately convey the limitations of the Court's decisions.
Judicial Decisions and Political Accountability
Recent Supreme Court decisions have reflected intriguing insights into the judicial landscape, including the dissenting opinions that voice profound concerns regarding judicial overreach. Notably, dissenting assessments highlight ongoing debates around the executive power and the ability of district judges to impose binding decisions on governmental agencies, particularly in cases related to foreign aid. These dissenters question whether individual district judges should wield such authority, especially under contentious political climates. This conversation underscores the increasing implications of judicial interpretations in the context of political accountability.
Gun Manufacturers and Legal Accountability
The Supreme Court case involving Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers raises critical questions about legal accountability and the scope of protections under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Mexico alleges that U.S. manufacturers have contributed to the proliferation of firearms in the hands of drug cartels through negligent practices. Lawmakers and legal experts express deep concern regarding the implications of a ruling favoring gun manufacturers, fearing it could impede legitimate claims seeking justice for the harm caused by guns. This case reflects broader discussions about corporate responsibility and the intersection of public safety and legal protections.
The Future of Judicial Standards
The potential chipping away of established judicial standards such as New York Times versus Sullivan raises alarm regarding the future of press freedoms and public accountability. While outright overturning of this precedent may be unlikely, there are concerns that modifications could make it easier for public figures to pursue legal action against media outlets. Such changes would not only affect investigative journalism but could also deter public discourse regarding influential individuals. The implications of these shifts pose a significant threat to the robust environment that encourages both free speech and press accountability.
After covering the latest goings-on in Trumpland, Melissa and Kate turn to this week’s SCOTUS arguments and opinions, touching on the Court’s decision to weaken the EPA’s clean water regulations and Mexico’s bid to hold American gun manufacturers liable for cartel violence. In the second part of the episode, Kate and Melissa talk with David Enrich of the New York Times about his new book, Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful.
Kate:Towards A New Equal Protection Paradigm by Issa Kohler Hausmann, co-authored with Kevin Yang and Charlotte Lawrence; Severance (Apple TV+)
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE - The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! Listener presale Wednesday March 12 at 10am local time - Thursday March 13 at 10pm local time with code YOLO, general sale starts Friday March 14
