Boo hoo for National Review and Samuel Alito over Michael Mann and his libel lawsuit

Eight Supreme Court justices, including even Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, are less wingnut than Samuel Alito, issuing a per curium order that lets Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann's defamation suit against National Review go forward.

Contra Alito issuing a public dissent against the unsigned order, there is no First Amendment issue at stake.

What's at stake is simply whether National Review defamed Mann or not by calling him the "Jerry Sandusky of climate science." Period.

That's a matter for a trial court (and jury, if NR wants one) to decide. The Supreme Court, if the case is appealed all the way there, then can eventually make findings of fact about how the federal district court handled the case. Period.

As for that case? I think Mann was libeled. Reminder — here are the specifics:

A National Review post discussed an investigation by Penn State into Mann clearing him of data manipulation accusations, which found no wrongdoing. It compared the Mann investigation to the university's investigation of child molestation charges against then-football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, saying Mann is "the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data."

Had only the last clause been used? No libel. But, comparing him to a child molester, even if rhetorically? Crosses the line, I think. Comparing him to a specific, known child molester? We're going beyond rhetorical to specific attack. Like comparing someone to Hitler, NR clearly intended to give offense.

As for Alito's boo-hooing about the lawyering up money National Review will continue to incur? That's never been mentioned in a libel case ruling by the Supreme Court before, whether a per curiam like this on procedural issues or an appeal on the facts of the case.

Editor Rich Lowry should have thought of that before letting this be posted. Short of that, he should have thought about that in issuing a formal apology and otherwise coming to terms with Mann long ago.

Remember, this is the Alito who hates the First Amendment in other ways, like in being a solo holdout in not wanting to extend it — either freedom of speech or freedom of assembly — to Westboro Baptist Church, nor, more recently, on freedom of religion re Bladensburg Cross.

That said, Alito has a long history of churlishness — including and specifically toward fellow justices — so Monday's escapade in that sense really is not anything new.

==

Sidebar: This ruling comes as disgraced former Congresscritter Smokey Joe Barton, a climate change denier, tells how he got the ban lifted on US oil exporting.