4 ms·

I actually find their statements to be irrational. It is absolutely necessary for the courts to decide that the legislature can't give federal agents immunity

I actually find their statements to be irrational. It is absolutely necessary for the courts to decide that the legislature can't give federal agents immunity to violate civil rights. Rebalancing constitutional rights toward the federal government is not a right of congress. (Congress could only write laws agreeing with this conclussion or they would fail in the supreme court.)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
blihp 6y ago
That would be a different argument and case. If Congress were to pass a law providing blanket immunity of federal employees, expect it to be challenged on constitutional grounds especially in a case where the damages were the result of misconduct. All the SCOTUS seems to be saying here (my interpretation) is that if the desire is to provide any level of immunity for government employees, there needs to be a law passed explicitly saying that. Whether or not the law passes constitutional muster is an argument for another day. This is definitely a slippery slope situation.