Elon Musk’s “thermonuclear” Media Matters lawsuit may be fizzling out

Post content hidden for low score. Show…

/or\

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,410
My go to for Elon Musk bashing!
Screenshot 2025-08-12 154622.png


Says he was photobombed...
What about the Epstein files?
 
Upvote
38 (38 / 0)
There needs to be real consequences for government employees participating in blatantly unconstitutional lawsuits. Removal or impeachment are not realistic when they do the bidding of the majority, wasting everybody's time, getting slapped, and then proudly adding it to their resumes.
Real consequences. Qualified immunity is part of our problem.
Nuremberg was pretty clear that pleasing the guy at the top should never be an excuse to break the law, and being part of the machine should never shield from gross misconduct.
My current refrain is, "collaborators will get what they deserve."
 
Upvote
21 (22 / -1)

wastrel

Ars Tribunus Militum
2,932
When all "conservatives" do is lie about everything, it's only natural that rational people would want to call them out on that absence of truth, with these conservatives then branding this response to their lies as "censorship." Lies should never be tolerated by anyone. The fact that some delusional people think they have the right to lie to get what they want tells you everything you need to know about these fuckers. By their own measure they will burn in Hell (presuming they believe in a God as they proclaim to do). However, their claim of "censorship" is itself a lie; they're merely being labeled accurately by unbiased bystanders. It's not like they'll ever wake up or anything, but they need to be treated based on their behavior at the very least. And at no time was this scum censored. Actually, we want them to remain associated with the scum they continue to spew so that it will be with them for the rest of their lives (and lies).
 
Upvote
36 (36 / 0)

the cave troll

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,256
Subscriptor++

Well, yes, people do tend to get pissed off at you when you remove trees from a public park so that you can have a better view. And poisoning your neighbor's trees is bad enough even when you don't do it in such a way that your chemicals leach into and endanger the neighboring public park. (It also looks really bad when go to your neighbor and pretend that you are sad to see their trees dying and offer to help share the cost of taking care of them.) Even when no public parks are involved, it is not so unreasonable for someone to be pretty upset at their neighbor for walking onto their property while they are away and sawing down 16 half-century-old trees.

So just to be clear, these particular examples are less about the mean government picking on the poor little guy and more about rich people behaving really badly and suffering legal consequences from that.
 
Upvote
50 (50 / 0)

JBanister

Ars Scholae Palatinae
630
Subscriptor
Yes I’m a child and yes the article is important and substantive and what I’m about to say takes away from that and yes it’s messed up to laugh at someone’s name. Nevertheless…

I absolutely love that we have a real judge with real power whose first name is Sparkle and I feel it should inspire a host of little girls to dress up as judge sparkle for Halloween and want to be judges when they grow up.
I hope it gets a lot of play in conservative media and motivates someone stupid in the government to attempt to illegally retaliate against her. It's always nice when they latch onto something that appeals to stupidity and harm themselves.
 
Upvote
2 (3 / -1)

graylshaped

Ars Legatus Legionis
67,934
Subscriptor++
I hope it gets a lot of play in conservative media and motivates someone stupid in the government to attempt to illegally retaliate against her. It's always nice when they latch onto something that appeals to stupidity and harm themselves.
The odds of Trump not working some demeaning insult into an ad hoc public ramble, should someone mention this detail to him, are rather long.
 
Upvote
12 (12 / 0)

the cave troll

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,256
Subscriptor++
Illegal and unconstitutional impeachment proceedings against a US District court judge in 3... 2... 1...

If the House of Representatives were inclined to start going around impeaching judges that disagreed with the Trump administration then they probably would have done it by now; more likely is that the Senate will start appointing new Trump judges like crazy in order to get more favorable rulings that way.
 
Upvote
20 (20 / 0)

geekydee

Ars Scholae Palatinae
625
Subscriptor++
IMO, I believe that anyone who files a lawsuit and drops it should be liable for ALL lawyer costs AND all losses incurred to the defending party...
IOW, if you believe it is worth filing, it is worth paying to lose...
On the flip side, the respondents should also be allowed to force discovery before dismissal...
 
Upvote
5 (9 / -4)

el_oscuro

Ars Praefectus
3,161
Subscriptor++
That's all it'll take to slow down or completely stop all the madness. Don't accept anything as the new norm. Don't shrug, walk away and say there's nothing you can do. That's defeatist bullshit. Fight it at all levels.
^^^ 💯
And if you live in VA or NJ, you have state elections coming up this November, and early voting starts Sep 20 (VA) or Oct 1 (NJ). Vote!!! Tell your friends! We need to put up a good ole ass whooping on these motherfuckers.
 
Upvote
34 (34 / 0)
Post content hidden for low score. Show…
Post content hidden for low score. Show…

omarsidd

Ars Praefectus
4,131
Subscriptor
Good.

The problem is we don't have punitive penalties for these sorts of harassment campaigns, lying on official sworn filings, piles of ethical and procedural faults, pressure applied under color of law- all done at a scale never seen before Dumpf and his armies of henchmen. When this is over, we can and should go after each and every lawyer and little maga (the henchmen), but the master villains still need to fall into the proverbial movie volcano for a satisfactory conclusion.

More literally, this sort of thing will happen again (and you could say that about everything Dumpf has done), now that it's been demonstrated, unless there's penalties at a level that nobody can miss and nobody would tolerate risking.
 
Upvote
15 (15 / 0)

TVPaulD

Ars Tribunus Militum
2,006
Angelo Carusone, told The New York Times that “the court’s ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration."
A-fucking-men. The only thing more dispiriting as an outside observer than seeing the USA freely vote to reinstall the fascist who attempted to overthrow the country's democracy has been seeing how abundantly easy many have made it for him to push further and further past the norms of social democratic order. The endless, shameful toadying and normalisation both in the US and abroad (my own government is guilty of the same thing) has been absolutely disgusting so it's nice to see someone - anyone - in open defiance. The only morally defensible attitude to the Trump47 Administration.
IMO, I believe that anyone who files a lawsuit and drops it should be liable for ALL lawyer costs AND all losses incurred to the defending party...
IOW, if you believe it is worth filing, it is worth paying to lose...
On the flip side, the respondents should also be allowed to force discovery before dismissal...
That's not a very good idea. That would discourage individual citizens, especially those who are less well off, from availing themselves of the legal system. It's hard enough for poor people to seek justice as it is.
 
Upvote
31 (31 / 0)
Yeah, the SCOTUS tactic lately seems to be not even arguing the merits of the case, but completely ignoring those merits, and proclaiming that lower courts have no authority to enjoin the administration from what sure look like Constitutional violations, until the case is fully heard. Or can only enjoin the government in that specific plaintiff's case, but can't enjoin the government from the exact same behavior applied to a million other people or companies.

So every Constitutional violation has to be fought on a case by case basis no matter how many times Trump's cronies violate people's rights, and the Government gets to 'cut down the trees' before the court is allowed to stop them. . .

What I mean by 'cut down the trees' is, my dad actually gave a great example of when he first learned about the expression 'fait accompli' - he was a young engineer fresh out of college, and there was a city that, I don't remember exactly, I think they had an airport - for whatever reason, the city leaders wanted to cut down some trees in a park, maybe because the park was adjacent to the airport and they wanted to clear the airspace more. And some members of the public who wanted to preserve the trees in the park, so they tried to sue the city, but the city cut down the trees before the plaintiffs could argue why they thought it was illegal for the city to cut down the trees. . . and that was that.

Once the trees are gone, you can't bring them back.

And some things are far more important than trees, but likewise, cannot be undone if the court doesn't prevent their doing in the first place. If ICE kills someone, the court cannot redress that. If ICE sends someone to a cruel third world dictator's prison, where they get raped or mutilated (e.g. have a finger or hand cut off or eye gouged out), the court cannot redress that. Last I checked, the Constitution banned cruel and unusual punishments and I don't think "this one weird trick" of just sending people to other countries to face cruel and unusual punishment at US taxpayer expense, should be constitutionally allowed.

If Courts can't enjoin such behavior, the Constitution is over. Gone.
The trees are however perhaps not the best example here, because there's a massive amount of historic case law on trees, logging rights and compensation thereof and to say the fines can be punitive is an understatement. People regularly underestimate just what a tree can be worth (hardwoods especially can be $$$) and cities CAN be (and have been) required to replant trees in the exact same spot and provide it with enough space, clearance and care for it to re-grow into a similar sized tree. The oft used tactic in these cases to just let the replacement tree die and then go "oh-well, can't be helped" has ALSO resulted in judicial slapping. Cutting a tree down that has ongoing litigation about it is... legally not a smart move. Judges REALLY don't like that sort of thing.
 
Upvote
23 (23 / 0)

cxar71

Seniorius Lurkius
28
Feels like too little, too late. SLAPP suits like these achieve their goal of silencing their targets way before going to court, and regardless of the final legal outcomes. Media Matters is struggling financially, and this is already a victory for Musk, it equated to neutering it. The law should be changed to make SLAPP suits actors pay tenfold the damage their ludicrous suits cause to their victims. But it can never happen with these President and Congress, if it may ever happen at all in the US, the land of the rich (not the brave).
 
Upvote
16 (16 / 0)
There is no such thing as an illegal boycott. No one is compelled to purchase your product.
Unfortunately, there is such a thing in US law - the Office of Antiboycott Compliance exists to force US entities to refuse to participate in certain forms of foreign boycott.

So far, the US doesn't have a prohibition against "primary boycotts" that I can find (that's where you refuse to buy a product). But it does have some prohibitions against joining "secondary boycotts" (where you refuse to deal with an entity unless they engage in a primary boycott of someone you disagree with) and "tertiary boycotts" (where you also require that everyone you deal with forces their suppliers and other customers to engage in a boycott of an entity you disagree with).

But the principle is established in US law that organised boycotts can, in some cases, be illegal.
 
Upvote
10 (10 / 0)
Unfortunately, there is such a thing in US law - the Office of Antiboycott Compliance exists to force US entities to refuse to participate in certain forms of foreign boycott.

So far, the US doesn't have a prohibition against "primary boycotts" that I can find (that's where you refuse to buy a product). But it does have some prohibitions against joining "secondary boycotts" (where you refuse to deal with an entity unless they engage in a primary boycott of someone you disagree with) and "tertiary boycotts" (where you also require that everyone you deal with forces their suppliers and other customers to engage in a boycott of an entity you disagree with).

But the principle is established in US law that organised boycotts can, in some cases, be illegal.
The US as a whole doesn't have a prohibition against primary boycotts, but plenty of states prohibit boycotting Israel specifically.
 
Upvote
15 (15 / 0)

Jeff S

Ars Legatus Legionis
11,039
Subscriptor++
The trees are however perhaps not the best example here, because there's a massive amount of historic case law on trees, logging rights and compensation thereof and to say the fines can be punitive is an understatement. People regularly underestimate just what a tree can be worth (hardwoods especially can be $$$) and cities CAN be (and have been) required to replant trees in the exact same spot and provide it with enough space, clearance and care for it to re-grow into a similar sized tree. The oft used tactic in these cases to just let the replacement tree die and then go "oh-well, can't be helped" has ALSO resulted in judicial slapping. Cutting a tree down that has ongoing litigation about it is... legally not a smart move. Judges REALLY don't like that sort of thing.
I would hope Judges don't like that, but you're getting a little too focused on that example and missing the point at large, which was more about people's basic constitutional rights, and once you send them to a third world prison, and without due process, that can't really be undone, even if you bring them back. They will still have suffered severe trauma.
 
Upvote
13 (13 / 0)
I would tend to point out, also, that the history of autocracy is that the autocrats almost universally dump the people who helped put them in power, since having the ability to put someone in power means having the ability to put someone else in power. The influential within the LEFP should keep that in mind.
When do the people who are queuing up to help others into power start to learn that lesson in advance?
 
Upvote
5 (5 / 0)
Post content hidden for low score. Show…

TVPaulD

Ars Tribunus Militum
2,006
Just remember that the decades of prior planning that put conservatives in power to do all this to start with should also be theoretically possible for Democrats to do the same planning in half or less time where the usual Republican incompetence is exploited, to excise Republicans from power permanently, and even have popular support to do exactly that.

But they won't get there if they keep trying to tie one hand behind their backs with their 'big tent' rhetoric splitting their focus (such as overplaying their hands on identity politics and culture war issues, those issues are important but can only be resolved with the broad support of the working class regardless of rule of law)
Stop that. You are not helping. Those are conservative talking points. Nobody overplayed anything, certainly not the Democrats overplaying their hand on human rights for minorities. Backing down to conservative lies won't solve anything, it will just further alienate what little base the Democrats have left.
 
Upvote
28 (28 / 0)
- Musk vowed to file a "thermonuclear" lawsuit. -
I remember that véry strange things can happen to the meaning of words while on ketamine. Obviously he was super impressed at the time with this dripping-with-power word and expected it to do the same to other people's minds.
Perhaps I'll try to email him that I don't just hate his guts but think his extremely tiresome actions are much worse and I really wish he would stop it.
Boredom can be and in this case IS a lot more unpleasant than simple hate. I look forward to never thinking about him.
 
Upvote
2 (3 / -1)

Dadlyedly

Ars Tribunus Militum
2,554
Subscriptor
Yes I’m a child and yes the article is important and substantive and what I’m about to say takes away from that and yes it’s messed up to laugh at someone’s name. Nevertheless…

I absolutely love that we have a real judge with real power whose first name is Sparkle and I feel it should inspire a host of little girls to dress up as judge sparkle for Halloween and want to be judges when they grow up.
I feel the same way! I have a medical doctor at my medical center who's first name is Sweetheart, and I'd love to see little girls who want to grow up to be doctors because of her!
 
Upvote
7 (7 / 0)