That happened Friday when federal appeals court judge Laurence H. Silberman dissented in a defamation case decided by the D.C. Silberman used the occasion not merely to disagree with the majority’s application of the Sullivan test, a run-of-the-mill disagreement among judges. But this was not just unseemly ranting, it was ranting with a mission: an assault on Times v. Sullivan and on sticking with wrongly decided constitutional precedents. With Sullivan, the court imposed a new test when it came to public officials and, soon after, public figures. Times v. Sullivan isn’t one of them — it is an essential bulwark in democracy’s defense.

Source: Washington Post March 21, 2021 13:02 UTC