By Luc Cohen

NEW YORK, (Reuters) – Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin lost Tuesday’s bid to disqualify the judge in charge of her defamation suit against The New York Times. He should be replaced.

In March, the former governor of Alaska stated that Jed Rakoff, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff had set too high a standard for her to show malice by The Times. She also faulted Rakoff’s bizarre decision to dismiss Palin’s appeal while jurors deliberated.

The Times was ultimately supported by the jury.

Rakoff deemed Palin’s request for him to withdraw from the proceedings “frivolous” in a Tuesday written decision. She said that she hadn’t identified any legal mistakes

Rakoff said that Palin’s meritless charges of impropriety can not replace the evidence of actual malice in her trial presentation.

The 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling requires that public figures claiming defamation must show evidence of actual malice. This means they published false information, or showed reckless disregard for truth. Journalists are protected by the decision.

Palin’s attorney declined to comment. Palin appeals the verdict. Palin will now run to represent Alaska at the U.S. House of Representatives.

Palin (58) sued James Bennet, Times’ editorial page editor, and the Times for a June 14 2017 Times editorial, in which Palin addressed gun control issues and deplored the rise of anti-democratic rhetoric.

The shooting occurred following a shooting at an American congressional baseball practice in Virginia. Steve Scalise, Republican U.S. Rep. was one of the injured.

Incorrectly, the editorial linked Palin’s rhetoric to an Arizona mass shooting in 2011 where Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords sustained serious injuries. This was fixed the next day.