And we are back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.

I'm Matt Kittle's senior elections correspondent at The Federalist,

and as always, your experience Sherpa on today's quest for knowledge.

You can email the show at Radio at thefederalist.com.

Follow us on X at FBRLST.

Make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast and, of course, to the premium version

of our website as well.

Our guest today is Carson Holloway, political science professor at the University of Nebraska,

Omaha, and author of the new book,

No Liberty to Libel the constitutional case against New York Times, The Sullivan. In it, he argues

that the Supreme Court erred dangerously in its 1964 interpretation of the Constitution.

Carson, thank you so much for joining us in this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.

Thanks for having me on, Matt. It's a great pleasure.

Yeah, it's a great topic. It's an interesting topic, and it's something that seems akin to a number of legal minds that have followed this.

And let's start here.

I want to get your take on it.

I have heard before that this case in 1964, New York Times v. Sullivan is like Roe v. Wade in that it was bad law from the beginning

and its bad law low these many years later. What do you think of that? Well, I agree with that, to be honest with you.

And part of the reason I wrote the book is because it seems to me that the contemporary Supreme Court is willing to do a bit of a cleanup operation and jettisoned some of the earlier precedents that were not really based on the original understanding of the Constitution

or how it was historically understood. Roe being reversed in the Dobbs opinion a few years ago

was one of the most famous examples of that. But more generally, in a variety of opinions,

they have suggested a desire to be governed by or guided by the original the text, the original meaning,

...