3 ms·
> Ironically, Scalia and Thomas have both written dissents on the other side from the liberal judges at times, pointing out that there is literally no basis in
by daelon 3y ago
> Ironically, Scalia and Thomas have both written dissents on the other side from the liberal judges at times, pointing out that there is literally no basis in law for qualified immunity and the Court should just drop it entirely.
What's ironic about that?
- light_hue_1 3y agoIt's ironic because conservatives tend to be much more pro-police than liberals. Liberal justices could have ended qualified immunity when they controlled the Court. But they didn't listen to the conservative justices at the time. The thin blue line was more important. Now liberals want to water down or eliminate qualified immunity, but they've lost all power on the court. And the current conservative justices are far more extreme than Scalia or Thomas. They don't want to eliminate it. That's irony. Isn't a partisan and political Supreme Court with no limits or oversight that just makes up anything that it wants according to the party wishes great? This is an early sign of a failing state. We really need to urgently depoliticize the Supreme Court. Canada has done a lot to make sure its Supreme Court, which is equally powerful, doesn't become political. The US should do the same.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- opo 3y ago>...Now liberals want to water down or eliminate qualified immunity, but they've lost all power on the court. Which liberals on the Supreme Court want to water down or eliminate qualified immunity?
- light_hue_1 3y agoSotomayor has come out against it in dissents. Kagan is in more of a middle ground where she wants to limit it severely. Brown has been much more of a supporter, but that was before she was on the Supreme Court so we don't know much yet.