News digest

A court grows a pair? 

The Texas Tribune writes:

Two leaders of True the Vote jailed by federal judge for contempt of court

Federal marshals escorted the leaders of True the Vote out of a Houston courtroom on Monday morning and into a holding cell. Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips have been held in contempt of court for refusing to release the name of a person of interest in the defamation and computer hacking case against them, who they claim, without proof, is a confidential FBI informant.

They will remain in jail until they release the name of the man.

Election software company Konnech is suing Engelbrecht and Phillips for defamation. Konnech claims that a right-wing election denier group, True the Vote, defamed the technology company. Engelbrecht and Phillips claim the technology company’s software had security flaws and they were just innocent patriots exposing bad election-related things.

Occasionally courts will jail a journalist for refusing to disclose the names of their anonymous sources. But that is journalism protected by the Constitution’s freedom of the press clause in the First Amendment. As far as I know, courts rarely jail people for contempt, especially in politics-related cases. This is a politics-related civil lawsuit. Without evidence of the source of the defamatory information, it will be impossible to prove intent (“degree of fault” in some states).

Under Texas law, a plaintiff, Konnech in this case, must show or prove (1) the publication of a false statement of fact to a third party, (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff, (3) with the requisite degree of fault, at least amounting to negligence, and (4) damages, in some cases. If Engelbrecht and Phillips really believed the information was from an FBI informant, that might get them off the hook for intent or degree of fault, and thus for liability for defamation. 

Clarence Thomas is clueless (Alito is too)

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case about affirmative action in college admissions. Given decades of radical right animosity to affirmative action, one can reasonably expect the last vestiges of it to be obliterated. Law and Crime summarizes Thomas’ confusion in an article entitled:

Justice Thomas Says He Does Not ‘Have a Clue’ What Diversity Means at Oral Arguments in College Affirmative Action Case.

 

Apparently, it does not occur to Thomas to simply ask the parties what diversity means. Actually, he knows what it means. By making his arrogant, snarky comment, Thomas signals what is his vote is going to be. Alito made similar comments. Thomas and Alito have decided the outcome before all the evidence in the case was heard and considered. That is the opposite of how judges are supposed to judge. But it is how radical right Republican judges judge.

It will be interesting to see what the Republicans on the court come up with as their reasoning to kill affirmative action. The NYT comments on the impact of affirmative action’s death: “Such a decision would jeopardize affirmative action at colleges and universities around the nation, particularly elite institutions, decreasing the representation of Black and Latino students and bolstering the number of white and Asian ones.” That result has been a cherished long-term goal of Christian nationalists. They will very likely get their wish soon.

In the oral arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson framed the issue by asking whether America’s history of racial discrimination still matters. Apparently, it does not to the Republicans. The past is past, racism is dead and no more needs to be done. That is core Christian nationalist dogma.