Qualified Immunity is a Pernicious, Wicked Doctrine
BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 1 month ago
I have several remarks about the events depicted and discussed below, but make sure to watch the entire video.
First, none of this would happen if the cops involved – FedGov and local/county/state – didn’t want to engage in it. In other words, they like beating people up. There is no other explanation for this. This is sociopathic behavior.
Second, the problem is exacerbated when local/county/state LEOs are deputized as agents of the federal government, whether FBI or Marshals Office or whatever. Far from being protectors of rights and peace officers, as would need to be the case if the notion of second amendment sanctuaries means anything, it’s apparently too tempting when a local LEO hears the words “Deputized as a Federal Marshal.” They can’t turn it down under their own volition. They are in need of a body of laws and regulations on the local and state level telling them they cannot do that without state penalties.
Third, they should not be armed. They have all proven much to contemptuous of rights and liberties, and much too dangerous, to walk around armed. In the case of most LEOs, they are “armed to the terror of the public,” as contrasted with open carriers who obey the law, and act in a peaceful manner.
Fourth, whatever body of law that supports the notion of qualified immunity must be turned back. It essentially means that LEOs, especially federally empowered LEOs, can violate constitutional liberties and rights with no remedy by those they have offended. This is prima facie ridiculous, and certainly wasn’t envisioned by the founders. The founders fought a war to stop this sort of thing and then prevent its recurrence.
Fifth, the FedGov has no business in local and state matters. Fusion centers and joint operations task forces should be banned by law.
Via Instapundit, Judge Don Willett knows what’s what with this doctrine.
Today’s decision upholding qualified immunity is compelled by our controlling precedent. I write separately only to highlight newly published scholarship that paints the qualified-immunity doctrine as flawed— foundationally—from its inception.
For more than half a century, the Supreme Court has claimed that (1) certain common-law immunities existed when § 1983 was enacted in 1871,2 and (2) “no evidence” suggests that Congress meant to abrogate these immunities rather than incorporate them.3 But what if there were such evidence? Indeed, what if the Reconstruction Congress had explicitly stated—right there in the original statutory text—that it was nullifying all common-law defenses against § 1983 actions? That is, what if Congress’s literal language unequivocally negated the original interpretive premise for qualified immunity? Professor Alexander Reinert argues precisely this in his new article, Qualified Immunity’s Flawed Foundation—that courts have been construing the wrong version of § 1983 for virtually its entire legal life.
Wait, what?
[ … ]
In arguing that qualified immunity is flawed from the ground up, Professor Reinert poses a provocative question: “If a legislature enacts a statute, but no one bothers to read it, does it still have interpretive force?”9 It seems a tall order to square the modern qualified-immunity regime with Congress’s originally enacted language. But however seismic the implications of this lost-text research, “‘[a]s middle-management circuit judges,’ we cannot overrule the Supreme Court.”10 Only that Court can definitively grapple with § 1983’s enacted text and decide whether it means what it says—and what, if anything, that means for § 1983 immunity jurisprudence.
If was a gambler, I would lay all of my money down on the SCOTUS not turning back such awful, wicked doctrine and qualified immunity. Thus, the LEOs dispatched by the FedGov will become ever more hated, performing ever more cruel deeds as they see that they have no check on their behavior.
|
|
On April 2, 2023 at 10:17 pm, X said:
ACAB
On April 2, 2023 at 11:11 pm, Dan said:
There is absolutely NO BASIS whatsoever in the Constitution to allow for “qualified immunity”. It’s a concept magically created by criminals in power to keep from being held accountable under law. Now that it exists and has been acknowledged by the courts “qualifed immunity” is NOT GOING AWAY. Not until we burn the whole system down and start over. The criminals benefitting from it will NEVER allow it to be legislated out of existence and the criminals infesting the bench will never declare it unconstitutional. There are LOTS of things politicians and their hired thugs the badgemonkeys do that is blatantly unconstitutional. They don’t care. And the only way to stop them from doing these things is to remove them from power….and if necessary from this planet.
On April 3, 2023 at 5:24 am, Joe Blow said:
People like to post things like TINVOWOOT, but don’t really grok what they are saying…
Yes, our host is right, qualified immunity will not go away (I would be very surprised if something changed here, though it is technically possible the court will spontaneously grow a pair).
The Orcs will become orc-ier.
There will be more pushback – white communities will begin to resemble black ones (dindu nuthin). Ante’s will be upped, someones gonna shoot a cop, national gun confiscation begins, you’re either with the criminals, or with law abiding americans man, you’re welcome.
On April 3, 2023 at 7:17 am, joe said:
off topic but currently relevant
with your knowledge of the law — could you post an update to the “arm brace” edict
is it on hold?
time to get rid of those owned?
?????
thanks
On April 3, 2023 at 10:06 am, Don't mind me. said:
We all know this will only continue to get worse. Act accordingly.
On April 3, 2023 at 11:03 am, Frank Clarke said:
Joe Blow said “…someones (sic) gonna shoot a cop, national gun confiscation begins…”
Gun confiscation again? Really?
The recent success of ‘The Hunger Games’ series of movies very vividly displayed a society in which only the authorities have weapons, and I am sure the lesson was not lost on the bulk of those who watched: a disarmed society is an oppressed society and only those with guns or special favor eat well.
We rail against those who mouth threats against our ability to fight back, but we know, don’t we, that it’s all just words. Disarming 130 million people who already have 450 million guns and 300 billion rounds of ammo is not something that’s going to happen quickly or soon or without a great deal of bloodshed from exactly the class of people who think it can’t happen to them.
Our government has already crossed its Rubicon. The only question remaining is “how long before ALL of us are shooting cops?”
On April 3, 2023 at 11:29 am, Chas said:
It would be nice if someone named names of the “cops”…
On April 3, 2023 at 4:07 pm, Ozark Redneck said:
Looks like they are named in here:
https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20191127112110082_38973-pdf-Gammon.pdf
James King vs Brownback going to Supreme Court
On April 3, 2023 at 7:55 pm, X said:
“Ante’s will be upped, someones gonna shoot a cop”
Interesting scenario. The victim in the case thought he was getting robbed and assaulted. In a constitutional carry state, or with a valid CCW permit, this victim would have had every reason (and it would have have been entirely reasonable) for him to shoot unknown strangers who were not identifiable as police officers who attacked him.
Of course the filthy swine would have executed him on the spot had he done so.
On the other hand if the attacker is a uniformed cop, the victim is required to simply let himself be assaulted.