Have you seen the way the Supreme Court dresses?
What do you mean by “valid suit”?
If it’s filed correctly, the, yes, it’s a valid suit.
Or were you asking us to actually conduct the lawsuit on this messageboard and deliver a finding? In which case I’d have to say “not enough information”.
From the OP:
Well, it certainly didn’t kill Gerry Studds career – he was re-elected 6 times after he was censured for this. And the former page (then 28) campaigned for him in some of those re-election campaigns.
The person making the statement must know it to be false or show reckless disregard of the statement’s truth or falsity. Check.
Obviously, a requirement that the speaker must absolutely know that the statement is false would make it practically impossible (rather than merely difficult) to prove defamation.
I don’t know if he has a case but he would lose in the long run by giving Anderson a soap box. All this clown has to do is say he actually meant to talk about Senator Frank’s prostitute/companion who operated a brothel (unbeknownst to Frank) out of his apartment.
I have oft wondered about this.
If I aim an unloaded gun at your head and pull the trigger I am guilty of assault. If however they can prove that I thought the gun would fire and kill you, I am guilty of attempted murder.
So if I pray for you to die, and if they can prove I think prayer works that way,* that such prayer is likely to cause your death, how am I not guilty of attempted murder. I understand it opens up a huge can of worms, but the logic seems inescapable.
*But few believers think prayer can influence God to do any particular thing. Free will and all that.
A nitpick: I believe any lawsuit would have to be for slander (or defamation of character), as libel is the written word.
Well, presumably it was a bigger deal for him to give up some ass than to give up his vote.
Three out members of Congress. Frank, Baldwin, and Polis.
Perhaps, but the common law and the Model Penal Code (which largely dispenses with impossibility defenses) provides an escape hatch. MPC § 5.05(2) retains one particular type of impossibility defense and allows relieving the accused of criminal liability when the conduct “is so inherently unlikely to result or culminate in the commission of a crime that neither such conduct nor the actor presents a public danger.” The textbook example of this is the case of using a voodoo doll to bring one’s enemy to an untimely end (by a person who genuinely believes in the efficacy of voodoo). Although this is a criminal objective, the means used are so implausible that the law will not punish it. Likewise, praying that God smite your opponents, however much you might believe that God will indulge your petition, does not give rise to attempt liability for homicide.
What about praying to Chuck Norris?
Alright, 0.75%. I missed Polis, and the “half” is Dreier. Clearly they have increased their recruitment drive.
And until 2006, the pastor’s own state had a gay Congressman…Jim Kolbe. They’re everywhere, man!
Don’t forget Lindsey Graham.
Right, because to win Frank would have to prove that Anderson is not a fucking loon. 
Mental impairment is not traditionally a defense to tort liability. And even if it were an affirmative defense, the burden of proof would be on the party asserting it: the Reverend Anderson.
(I really hope RNATB is paying attention, if he plays his cards right, he’ll graduate Order of the Coif.)