4 ms·

> "it's because SCOTUS believes the legislature needs to act" The SC made up modern QI out of thin air on their own, so this feels like a cop-out.

thrill 6y ago
Every viewpoint some aggrieved group disagrees with gets blamed on the Court "making stuff up out of thin air". The Supreme Court believes it did its job the fist time and interpreted the laws as they are written commensurate with the Constitution, and most importantly if you read between the lines, does not believe the Court as it is made up would arrive at a different conclusion. Changes to such law need to come from the several hundred elected people responsible for such things.
- syshum 6y ago
  Except in this case QI is 100% invented by the court, and appears to run counter to statutory text as many justices have said in dissenting opinions over the years and has Justice Thomas does again in dissent here in this court order.
  - thrill 6y ago
    No, it is not invented by the Court - it is interpreted by the Court as being within the law as it is written. Lawmakers need to rewrite laws if they don't like how they get interpreted. Lawmakers are the people the the People get to influence.
    - ikiris 6y ago
      Please point out the basis in legislated law for qualified immunity.
whoopdedo 6y ago
That the Supreme Court has already stated QI is a thing can be seen as their reason not to argue it again. They're saying they don't see why the court would come to a different conclusion. It's a view that law is deterministic: given a particularly worded legislation and a specific finding of fact, only one conclusion can be arrived at. There can't be multiple interpretations. (A court can strike down a vague law, but if they uphold it then it must not be.) And an interpretation can't change over time or else that would be "legislating from the bench."
- jimmaswell 6y ago
  You're making it sound impossible or forbidden but the SC has overturned its own precedents over 300 times before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_Sta...
myself248 6y ago
> cop-out I see what you did there.

thrill 6y ago

Every viewpoint some aggrieved group disagrees with gets blamed on the Court "making stuff up out of thin air". The Supreme Court believes it did its job the fist time and interpreted the laws as they are written commensurate with the Constitution, and most importantly if you read between the lines, does not believe the Court as it is made up would arrive at a different conclusion. Changes to such law need to come from the several hundred elected people responsible for such things.

syshum 6y ago
Except in this case QI is 100% invented by the court, and appears to run counter to statutory text as many justices have said in dissenting opinions over the years and has Justice Thomas does again in dissent here in this court order.
- thrill 6y ago
  No, it is not invented by the Court - it is interpreted by the Court as being within the law as it is written. Lawmakers need to rewrite laws if they don't like how they get interpreted. Lawmakers are the people the the People get to influence.
  - ikiris 6y ago
    Please point out the basis in legislated law for qualified immunity.

whoopdedo 6y ago

That the Supreme Court has already stated QI is a thing can be seen as their reason not to argue it again. They're saying they don't see why the court would come to a different conclusion. It's a view that law is deterministic: given a particularly worded legislation and a specific finding of fact, only one conclusion can be arrived at. There can't be multiple interpretations. (A court can strike down a vague law, but if they uphold it then it must not be.) And an interpretation can't change over time or else that would be "legislating from the bench."

jimmaswell 6y ago
You're making it sound impossible or forbidden but the SC has overturned its own precedents over 300 times before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_Sta...

myself248 6y ago

> cop-out I see what you did there.