From the article: summary judgment. That is a procedure where the court can grant judgment for a party where there are no material facts in dispute and the law is in the party’s favor.
In other words the times was arguing that Palin’s case shouldn’t even go to trial because it was too weak and the judge disagreed with them
So... the New York Times pushed for this because they anticipate a judge ruling is favorable to The Times, and that increases the chance of a ruling in the Times' favor?
Do you think that Palin's team warrants this, on lack of evidence, or do you think she should have a jury trial?
