4 ms·

> It's the same bad precedent that they've been using for decades It's not a bad precedent, it's a precedent interpreting a bad law. It's on congress to write

by tharne 6y ago

> It's the same bad precedent that they've been using for decades It's not a bad precedent, it's a precedent interpreting a bad law. It's on congress to write laws. Congress could change this law any time they want. The court can only interpret law, they can't reverse a law just because a majority of people don't like it. If the law hasn't changed since the last time they heard the case, there's no point in them hearing any more cases because there is nothing new to discuss from a legal standpoint. There's an election in November in case anyone's interested.

miles 6y ago
> The court can only interpret law, they can't reverse a law just because a majority of people don't like it. The Supreme Court invented Qualified Immunity[1]. The law before that was very clear[2]: "The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute, numbered 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that allows people to sue the government for civil rights violations. It applies when someone acting 'under color of' state-level or local law has deprived a person of rights created by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#History_and_background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#History_and... [2] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-a-section-1983-lawsuit-against-the-police.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-a-section-19...
- koheripbal 6y ago
  QI doesn't contradict that law - it merely transfers liability from the individual to the state, which CAN still be sued. ...as we've seen many people sue police departments (rather than specific cops) for Civil Rights violations. Also, QI is also in various State statutes of Tort law that protects workers from litigation when acting as employees of any corporation.
burkaman 6y ago
It's not interpreting any law. > A policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he has probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does. Although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, the same consideration would seem to require excusing him from liability for acting under a statute that he reasonably believed to be valid but that was later held unconstitutional, on its face or as applied. - https://www.leagle.com/decision/1967933386us5471842 https://www.leagle.com/decision/1967933386us5471842 There is no law cited, it was just the justices' gut feeling. Courts since then have gradually expanded "reasonably believed to be valid" to mean there must be "precisely factually on-point caselaw" determining the actions are unconstitutional. Edit: I encourage you to read more about the Supreme Court, it seems like you're not familiar with a lot of its history or why it exists. > The court can only interpret law, they can't reverse a law just because a majority of people don't like it. It absolutely can reverse a law. Striking down unconstitutional laws is one of the main reasons it exists. > If the law hasn't changed since the last time they heard the case, there's no point in them hearing any more cases because there is nothing new to discuss from a legal standpoint. That is a frequent excuse, but consider two unanimous decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama: a unanimous decision ruling that a law against interracial marriage is constitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia: a unanimous decision ruling that a law against interracial marriage is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment did not change in between these two cases, and the facts of the cases were effectively the same.

by tharne 6y ago

miles 6y ago

> The court can only interpret law, they can't reverse a law just because a majority of people don't like it. The Supreme Court invented Qualified Immunity[1]. The law before that was very clear[2]: "The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute, numbered 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that allows people to sue the government for civil rights violations. It applies when someone acting 'under color of' state-level or local law has deprived a person of rights created by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#History_and_background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#History_and... [2] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-a-section-1983-lawsuit-against-the-police.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-a-section-19...

koheripbal 6y ago
QI doesn't contradict that law - it merely transfers liability from the individual to the state, which CAN still be sued. ...as we've seen many people sue police departments (rather than specific cops) for Civil Rights violations. Also, QI is also in various State statutes of Tort law that protects workers from litigation when acting as employees of any corporation.

burkaman 6y ago

It's not interpreting any law. > A policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he has probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does. Although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, the same consideration would seem to require excusing him from liability for acting under a statute that he reasonably believed to be valid but that was later held unconstitutional, on its face or as applied. - https://www.leagle.com/decision/1967933386us5471842 https://www.leagle.com/decision/1967933386us5471842 There is no law cited, it was just the justices' gut feeling. Courts since then have gradually expanded "reasonably believed to be valid" to mean there must be "precisely factually on-point caselaw" determining the actions are unconstitutional. Edit: I encourage you to read more about the Supreme Court, it seems like you're not familiar with a lot of its history or why it exists. > The court can only interpret law, they can't reverse a law just because a majority of people don't like it. It absolutely can reverse a law. Striking down unconstitutional laws is one of the main reasons it exists. > If the law hasn't changed since the last time they heard the case, there's no point in them hearing any more cases because there is nothing new to discuss from a legal standpoint. That is a frequent excuse, but consider two unanimous decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama: a unanimous decision ruling that a law against interracial marriage is constitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia: a unanimous decision ruling that a law against interracial marriage is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment did not change in between these two cases, and the facts of the cases were effectively the same.