4 ms·
Every QI case the Supreme Court has taken in the past few years has only made it stronger. There is no chance that Trump's SCOTUS is going to change their tune.
by AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
Every QI case the Supreme Court has taken in the past few years has only made it stronger. There is no chance that Trump's SCOTUS is going to change their tune.
- klyrs 6y agoRoberts seems to be taking his tie-breaker role very seriously, and aside from certain [censored]* dictators, politicians do seem to be taking the present situation seriously. Strengthening QI right now would be metaphorical gasoline for the literal fires burning in our cities. I wouldn't make a bet in either direction right now. *[edited for political correctness, I'm so sorry that people were offended by my low-brow swipe at the world's most influential racebaiter and / or I'm sorry to besmirch the good name of your favorite cheesy-corn snack]
- tathougies 6y agoUm.. Clarence Thomas doesn't like it either. In his opinion on Zigler v Abbasi, Justice Thomas says: > Because our analysis is no longer grounded in the common-law backdrop against which Congress enacted the 1871 Act, we are no longer engaged in “interpret[ing] the intent of Congress in enacting” the Act. Our qualified immunity precedents instead represent precisely the sort of “freewheeling policy choice[s]” that we have previously disclaimed the power to make. Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U. S. 356, 363 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). > > … Until we shift the focus of our inquiry to whether immunity existed at common law, we will continue to substitute our own policy preferences for the mandates of Congress. In an appropriate case, we should reconsider our qualified immunity jurisprudence.