4 ms·

>This is like saying employees should be personally liable for mistakes they make at work. No, it isn't--poor choice of a strawman. This judge's actions were n

• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• pc86 3y ago
  Which is egregious. Which means they shouldn't have any immunity. Which appears to have been exactly what was decided in this case. I agree with you that seems to have been handled exactly as it should have been. It's a leap to go from that to "end all immunity in all circumstances."
  • nwiswell 3y ago
    What about ending the presumption of immunity? It was an uphill battle in this case to strip the judge's immunity. Almost certainly this judge abused individuals who did not have the resources to defend their rights. Perhaps the burden of proof should not be so onerous. Maybe the solution is that the employer (in this case the WV judiciary) has the option to accept liability. If they do so, immunity is presumed. If the employer rejects the liability, then the individual must prove that they are entitled to immunity. Obviously there's a financial incentive for an employer to deny liability, but doing so would be extremely unpopular with employees. So presumably they would be judicious depending on the circumstances.
    • MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Why would that be any better then the current system already in place, after factoring in all upsides and downsides?
• dragonwriter 3y ago
  > This judge's actions were not a "mistake", they were a deliberate abuse of power. They also weren't within the coverage of judicial immunity, so that's irrelevant.