3 ms·
Considering this has been around since 1982 I would say both parties have enough blame to go around. Congress has to do this so that Courts can rely on law to
by Shivetya 6y ago
Considering this has been around since 1982 I would say both parties have enough blame to go around.
Congress has to do this so that Courts can rely on law to determine if an offense occurred. The problem we face is that many in Congress will want to lump into a much larger bill with some very untenable items knowing that as such it cannot pass. This is called virtue signaling which has been practiced far too often by Congress.
One simple bill, up and down.
https://amash.house.gov/media/press-releases/amash-pressley-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-end-qualified-immunity https://amash.house.gov/media/press-releases/amash-pressley-...
- thomascgalvin 6y ago> I would say both parties have enough blame to go around. There's only one party preventing discussion or a vote. This both-sides-are-the-same rhetoric is both patently false and a disservice to the American public.
- ashtonkem 6y agoBoth parties have failed to act, but now that one party has finally caught up to reality in this one area, only one party is actively obstructing something that is an obvious necessity.
- LanceH 6y agoIt is a common tactic to claim support for something popular when you know it can't pass. Last I checked, the Democrats are in charge of virtually all of the cities where this is happening, as well as most of the states. No reason this can't get done at the state and local levels.
- couchand 6y agoWell, the supremacy clause, for one.
- veeralpatel979 6y agoI thought the supremacy clause applies only when federal and state law are in conflict?
- aesh2Xa1 6y agoAnd isn't that a reason States could not contradict a federal law of exactly this sort?
- ashtonkem 6y agoUnclear to me. If QI was a law, the supremacy clause would certainly apply. But QI is not a law, however it is a policy created by the courts based on federal law. It’s not clear to me whether the supremacy clause applies here, but I suspect it does.
- wnoise 6y agoThat keeps them from altering the contours of 42 USC 1943 to eliminate QI, but it doesn't prevent them from adding a parallel redress under state law.
- jellicle 6y agoMmmm, if we polled the leadership of the Democratic Party or Democratic elected officials, I think you'd find that nearly 100% of them support qualified immunity or, if they express lack of support, are nevertheless unwilling to act against it. Same with the Republican Party. So I have no idea which party you are referring to that has "caught up with reality". Certainly there's a segment of mostly-Democratic voters who oppose QI, but... they aren't represented among leadership at all.
- ashtonkem 6y agoThere’s a bill in Congress now to end QI, it has support among democratic Congress people and Justin Amash. I would personally count that as leadership not supporting QI.
- ianleeclark 6y agoIt's perfectly safe to support something like this in the moment, as it can't pass the Senate or avoid being vetoed.
- ashtonkem 6y agoThen what, pray tell, are you suggesting?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ianleeclark 6y ago> Both parties have failed to act, but now that one party has finally caught up to reality in this one area Just like card check. You'll get tax rebates on medical procedures following officer involved incidents if your lucky.