3 ms·
This is like qualified immunity (usually for police), but applied to POTUS. You want public servants to be able to do their jobs without fear of time-wasting l
by alistairSH 2y ago
This is like qualified immunity (usually for police), but applied to POTUS.
You want public servants to be able to do their jobs without fear of time-wasting litigation.
But, if you grant blanket immunity, the poilice (or POTUS) are free to do whatever they want.
We're quite clearly tilted way over into "do what they want" territory.
- Waterluvian 2y agoI think that’s the argument, yes. I think it’s facially a bad one when you consider all the examples of functional police that lack QI. Makes me skeptical that it’s a good faith argument.
- alistairSH 2y ago100% agree. AFAIK, QI no longer exists in England (not sure about Scotland or N.I.). And Germany never had it (civil cases for damages would be against the state, not the state representative).
- ffgjgf1 2y ago> civil cases for damages would be against the state, not the state representative Isn’t that the same as QI?
- Clubber 2y agoI believe qualified immunity only protects from direct civil litigation but not criminal.
- alistairSH 2y agoYep, it's a rough analogy, not a perfect match. And, given the state of policing and justice in the US, civil litigation is often the only way to get any relief for over-zealous policing. And QI makes that bar even higher than it should be.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y agoFind me a DA that will routinely prosecute crooked cops. They don’t exist because the gangs close ranks and protest by refusing to their job. When other state employees protest they get beaten and forced back to work. Interesting.
- sanderjd 2y agoQualified immunity is already really bad though...
- lannisterstark 2y agoThat's not a defense though - because of qualified immunity, cops get to be rampant authoritarians with 0 recourse for most people.