OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion
The Supreme Court rejected Stormy Daniels’ defamation suit against President Donald Trump on Monday.
The porn star, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, sued President Trump in 2018 after he tweeted a suggestion that she was lying about having been threatened by an “unknown man” in 2011 over her alleged affair.
The case had been previously dismissed by lower courts, but Daniels decided to take it to the Supreme Court.
But the justices just denied her petition without comment.
“The case arose after Daniels released a sketch of the man who she claims threatened her in a parking lot and ordered her to “Leave Trump alone.” The purported confrontation came as Daniels was weighing whether to go public with the story of her extramarital affair with Trump,” The Hill reported.
After the sketch was made public, Trump responded derisively on Twitter.
“A sketch years later about a nonexistent man,” Trump tweeted. “A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!”
Daniels later sued, claiming Trump’s tweet amounted to defamation.
The sketch looked exactly like her husband Brendon Miller.
Check it out:
A California-based federal appeals court said Trump’s statement was an opinion and therefore protected speech.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to reject the review of two 2020 Pennsylvania presidential election cases Monday, but Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas believe they should have been given hearings.
In his dissent, Justice Thomas argued mass mail-in voting, which was conducted in Pennsylvania for the first time ahead of the 2020 presidential election in November, combined with election rules being rewritten last minute, makes the process prone to fraud and mistrust.
“The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections…Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day,” Thomas wrote.
“Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”
“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,” he continued.