Senate Republican Police 'Reforms' Won't Touch Qualified Immunity

With Trump opposed too, there's little hope that a serious police reform bill will get through Congress anytime soon. 

Senate Republicans plan to introduce police reform legislation focused on training and reporting requirements, but the bill will not eliminate legal protections for police officers who kill or injure civilians.

NPR reports that Sen. Tim Scott (R–S.C.) is hoping to bring a bill to the Senate floor before July 4th, but the package being crafted by the sole black Republican in Congress' upper chamber is unlikely to contain several of the more ambitious reforms included in a bill unveiled yesterday by House Democrats. Most importantly, Scott "ruled out" abolishing qualified immunity—the legal doctrine that protects police officers from being held liable in civil court for deaths or injuries they inflict while on duty.

Ending qualified immunity would make it easier to hold cops accountable when they harm people. In addition to the Democratic proposal, Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) has introduced a standalone bill to end qualified immunity. So far, no Republicans have signed on to co-sponsor Amash's bill—though Rep. Tom McClintock (R–Calif.) has expressed support for the effort.

But Scott told reporters on Wednesday that he does not see how those reforms would "get to the finish line." White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Tuesday that any attempt to reform qualified immunity would be a "non-starter" for President Donald Trump.

Instead, Republicans in Congress appear to be coalescing around a series of ideas that would require police departments to train officers in de-escalation techniques and to require additional reporting of violent incidents to the federal Department of Justice. With Trump committed to an explicit "LAW & ORDER" campaign message, there is probably little appetite among Republican lawmakers to do much else.

Encouraging police departments to adopt less aggressive tactics doesn't do enough to fix the problems with policing in America. As long as qualified immunity remains, bad cops will have little incentive to change their behavior—the legal defense has been invoked to protect cops who steal, cops who murder children, and cops who rape nurses—and police chiefs will still have no power to purge bad cops from their squads.

If Republicans in Congress are unwilling to support qualified immunity reforms, then any bill Scott or his colleagues might eventually produce is likely to be little more than window-dressing, and the party that professes to believe in limited government will have shrunk from an opportunity to limit some of the worst behavior of government employees.

There's still hope that courts, including potentially the Supreme Court, will reassess the constitutionality of qualified immunity.

"I think there's going to be a Republican proposal and a Democrat proposal. The only thing that bothers me about that, is what usually happens when there's a Republican proposal and a Democrat proposal?" Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) told NPR. "An impasse and nothing."

Comments

[Rommel32]

That is truly disappointing news to hear. I can only hope the SCOTUS will do better.

[Mlovesaw]

Corona is big threat of the century which effect physically, mentally and financially/PMb To over come these difficulties and make full use of this hostage period and make online earning.

For more detail visit the given link.......► Home Profit System

[Qsl]

I could even understand leaving QI off the table. There is a justification for it, even if it is misapplied.

But the rest of these are gutless, and are rearing up the ugly head of civil liberties on the left, economic prosperity on the right. Choose.

[aasas]

I am now making 65 Dollars/h by doing a very simple and easy online work from home. I have received exactly $8471 last month from this online work. To start making extra income Just follow the instructions on… Read More

[TJJ2000]

What's really disappointing is WTF is the federal government doing writing STATE laws?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[JesseAz]

Qualified Immunity is a judicial doctrine.

"The U.S. Supreme Court first introduced the qualified immunity doctrine in 1967, originally with the rationale of protecting law enforcement officials from frivolous lawsuits and financial liability in cases where they acted in good faith in unclear legal situations.[5][6]"

You wouldn't ask the president to ignore USSC precedent would you? This is the wrong branch to ask for change.

I know some of you want Trump to stop being a dictator, so stop asking him to be a dictator.

The executive should stick to reforms they can, which isnt much since police enforcement is a state action. They can investigate constitutional abuse, but that is literally about it.

The legislative can help by clarifying procedures and practices to reduce the reliance on the QI doctrine. But that is about it.

To fix QI the USSC has to step in.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Bullshit. This is as good an opportunity to correct the Supreme Court as they come. If the Supreme Court doesn't like it, if they think QI is a constitutional right, then they can correct the legislature.

Nothing to do with Trump being a dictator. Everything to do with normal legislation.

Stop reaching for the TDS bar.

[JesseAz]

So what enforcement action does Trump have that can cancel out a USSC precedent? What enforcement mechanism would limit it to just not QI and expand to things like Roe?

[JesseAz]

Just QI and not expand*

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

He can sign legislation. Not all Supreme Court decisions are based on the Constitution, most are based on legislation. I don't know how they made up QI, but if it was only based on common law, legislation can change it anytime.

[Squirrelloid]

It requires legislative action, not just executive action.

That said, QI is not rooted in the constitution. SCOTUS explicitly invited Congress to clarify, modify, or abolish QI, as it doesn't have any explicit roots in legislation either, and if Congress didn't intend it, it's withing Congress's perogative to do something. It's basically a deference doctrine (to state actors).

[damikesc]

I will note legislation about abortion, another legal right created by courts alone, don't do well in court.

[Wearenotperfect]

I agree except for the dictator part of your statement. Trump is so fuck you Jesse!

[JesseAz]

English next time sweetie.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

I agree. SCOTUS created this doctrine and it's time for them to abolish it. And the federal government really has very little control over state and local cops. It doesn't sign union contracts or write special legal protections into statutes, state and local politicians do. Until cops are held to the same standards as the rest of us nothing will change. And that is going to come at a political price a lot of politicians are unwilling to pay.

[Overt]

This is a bizarre line to take. It is common for the Courts to interpret the law, and then for the Legislature to clarify or change the law, making that interpretation no longer useful.

So it is perfectly valid for the US to make it against the law for a state or federal agent to violate the constitution, and to hold that person personally responsible for such violations.

[BYODB]

What specific law was the court ruling on? Keep in mind that the SC believes it can legislate from the bench.

[jph12]

As Samantha Harris explained in another article right here at Reason today, "[i]ndividuals whose constitutional rights were violated by state actors can bring a federal lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, a civil rights statute that allows people to sue officials acting "under color of" state law for violations of their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court's intent in creating qualified immunity was to ensure that public officials could perform their duties without the constant fear of liability for "reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions." In practice, however, the doctrine has come to insulate public officials from liability unless their conduct has explicitly been declared unconstitutional in a case with a nearly identical fact pattern—an impossible standard to meet, and one that has become a significant barrier to justice."

[JesseAz]

And yet your interpretation is not supported by any circuit court. I can point out, as Reason has, a number of actual QI cases from just this year.

Just because someone says something doesnt mean their doctrine is actionable.

[jph12]

It's painfully obvious that you really have no idea what you are talking about. My interpretation is supported by the United States Supreme Court and every circuit court in the country. Had you bothered to go read the article by Samantha Harris, rather than just spout off more ignorant nonsense, you would have know it was talking about one of those cases where qualified immunity was successfully used as a defense. And what was it used as a defense against? Why a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim.

[JesseAz]

Yes, you pointed to one case in one circuit that was very narrowly applied and is not the uniform doctrine of the courts.

So no, you dont actually know what you're talking about.

[jph12]

How many cases have you pointed to? And the application of qualified immunity in that case was not narrowly applied.

I have a challenge for you. Go through "the number of actual QI cases from just this year" that Reason has pointed out and count how many times those cases involve qualified immunity being used as a defense against a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim. I'll bet it's over 75% (it's probably not 100% because qualified immunity can apply in Bivens cases as well).

I'll do the second one for you too, it's about the cops who got away with attacking the man in his front yard.

"Howse then sued Hodous and Middaugh under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Fourth Amendment rights and for committing assault and battery under Ohio law. He also sued the City of Cleveland, claiming that the City was responsible for the Fourth Amendment violations. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. This appeal followed."

That's two.

[JesseAz]

Here dummy.

https://reason.com/2020/05/08/courts-grant-qualified-immunity-to-cops-in-more-than-half-of-cases-when-invoked/

"Reuters analyzed 252 federal appellate opinions from 2015 to 2019 where law enforcement defendants claimed qualified immunity. The courts ruled in the police's favor in 57 percent of the cases."

Did you one better. Pointed to actual analysis. Which you'll ignore.

I do like you pretending that the 10ps of briefs and articles asking the USSC to review QI dont exist. It makes you look brilliant lol.

[jph12]

"Did you one better. Pointed to actual analysis. Which you’ll ignore."

Actual analysis of what? I don't see anything in that article talking about whether the case was a 42 U.S.C. 1983 case (which almost all of them are). Here's a quote from the article linked to the Judge Willet case:

"Section 1983 meets Catch-22. Plaintiffs must produce precedent even as fewer courts are producing precedent. Important constitutional questions go unanswered precisely because those questions are yet unanswered. Courts then rely on that judicial silence to conclude there's no equivalent case on the books. No precedent = no clearly established law = no liability."

Section 1983. There's three.

"I do like you pretending that the 10ps of briefs and articles asking the USSC to review QI dont exist."

I'm not doing that at all. I know that qualified immunity exists. It's primary use is as a defense by state agents in 42 U.S.C. 1983 cases.

[JesseAz]

By the way, section 1973 only covers the requirement of a plaintiff "identify a relevant case in the same jurisdiction with nearly identical facts" in it. It is a measure of legal requirement but not the sole criteria to meet Qualified Immunity per current doctrine. But since you're an expert, you knew this.

So again.. congress can reduce the role of QI, but not eliminate it, which is what I stated.

[JesseAz]

1983*

[jph12]

"By the way, section 1973 only covers the requirement of a plaintiff “identify a relevant case in the same jurisdiction with nearly identical facts” in it."

No, Section 1983 is what gives you the right to sue a state agent for a violation of your rights.

"So again.. congress can reduce the role of QI, but not eliminate it, which is what I stated."

Which is completely wrong.

[JesseAz]

Well no. I'm right. Based on the actual fucking facts of successful use of QI by the defense against plaintiffs.

And again, here you go since you love to be do wrong.

"In practice, what the “clearly established” gloss on Section 1983 requires is for would‐​be civil rights plaintiffs to identify a relevant case in the same jurisdiction with nearly identical facts. Thus, if Mr. Floyd’s family wants to sue the officer who took his life, they will need to find an existing case from the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holding that a police officer may not kneel on a unresisting suspect’s neck, ignoring his pleas for help, until he passes out."

[jph12]

"Well no. I’m right. Based on the actual fucking facts of successful use of QI by the defense against plaintiffs."

That defendants have successfully used qualified immunity in the past in no way prevents Congress and the President from eliminating it in the future.

[Nardz]

"That defendants have successfully used qualified immunity in the past in no way prevents Congress and the President from eliminating it in the future."

So what would that law look like?
"The federal government hereby prohibits judges at any level from dismissing any claims made against (only) police officers on the grounds of QI"?

[jph12]

There are any number of ways to do it, some that would be close to what you propose. The vast majority of the cases where qualified immunity applies are brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which allows people to sue state (but not federal) agents for violations of constitutional rights, so it's not really as complicated as it may seem. They could amend Section 1983 to say something along the lines of "The judicial doctrine of qualified immunity (maybe add in, as established in Case such and such and its progeny) shall not apply to cases brought under this section.

There are examples of similar amendments to laws. It's a state law, but California has probably the harshest laws in the country against unlicensed contractors (an owner can intentionally hire a contractor they know is unlicensed, pay the contractor every month until the job is complete, then sue the contractor to get every penny paid back once the project is complete--or just refuse to pay the contractor and there's nothing the contractor can do about it). Judges started softening the effects by holding that the contractor was entitled to the money if they substantially complied with the licensing laws. The Legislature responded by passing an amendment to the relevant licensing law that said "[t]he judicial doctrine of substantial compliance shall not apply under this section" and judges stopped allowing substantial compliance as a defense.

They could also do it without referencing qualified immunity at all simply by amending Section 1983 to read that people are entitled to judgment if they can prove that the state agent violated their rights, regardless of whether the right was clearly established.

[JesseAz]

By the way... since you've proven yourself daft... repeal of the interpretation of 1983 only removes the requirement to show a like case in the same circuit. It does not end the reasonable interpretation standard found in the original QI doctrine holding.

Again, it would reduce it and make it harder to argue QI, but it does not end it.

Are you done being wrong yet?

[jph12]

"Are you done being wrong yet?"

Can't finish what I haven't started.

[Squirrelloid]

Justin Amash's proposed bill would in fact eliminate QI, including 'reasonable interpretation', and anything other than analyzing whether the plaintiff's constitutional rights were in fact violated.

[Nardz]

"Justin Amash’s proposed bill would in fact eliminate QI, including ‘reasonable interpretation’, and anything other than analyzing whether the plaintiff’s constitutional rights were in fact violated."

Is that constitutional?

[jph12]

Almost certainly (never discount the possibility of Congress completely screwing the pooch). Qualified immunity is a judicial limitation primarily on the enforcement of a statute passed by Congress (there are some limited other uses as well). Ever since the Court first announced the principle, Congress and the President have been free to either eliminate or modify qualified immunity by passing a new law. They simply have chosen not to do so. And it seems likely that they have chosen not to do so once again.

[Tulpademic]

In fairness to Republicans, a few are now endorsing Amash’s bill.

[JesseAz]

QI I'd not based on legally passed legislation. There is no interpretation of the law. It was a doctrine created full cloth from a liability concern against the state. There is now that can be repealed to end QI from current precedent. It is similar to Roe's reliance on a right to privacy. There is no law that granted the right, it was formed from judicial creation. QI is in the same boat.

Now QI is predicated on state actors (people forget it doesnt apply to only cops) not having yet been told what is and is not a violation of a citizens rights. This is why Congress could have a role in reducing, but not eliminating, QI by carefully examining rules and procedures of a police force. The problem here then becomes a federalism problem as states are largely the branch empowered with police powers, not the feds.

Not sure why you think this is a bizarre take. I literally told you where the doctrine began in my original comment.

[Juice]

Why can't legislation "clearly establish" the things for which a cop does not have QI?

[JesseAz]

I said it could on my post...

"This is why Congress could have a role in reducing, but not eliminating, QI by carefully examining rules and procedures of a police force. "

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So even by your own standard, Congress could completely eliminate QI by stating that everything that police officers do while on the clock is subject to Section 1983 then, right?

[Squirrelloid]

It's not like Roe at all, because Roe's right to privacy is derived from the Constitution. The government can't pass laws against the constitution, so it can't legislate around Roe. (Whether you think that reasoning is any good or not, only SCOTUS or a Constitutional Amendment can revisit it, because SCOTUS is the final word on what the constitution means).

QI doesn't emanate from the Constitution. Therefore, Congress can pass laws which eliminate it.

[Gray_Jay]

Congress drafts legislation a lot, that's an end around Scotus opinions they don't care for. Nothing says they can't toss QI for federal causes of action in the trash if they wanted to. They haven't wanted to until now, for some pretty good reasons. But they don't have to wait for Scotus to say, 'Mother, may I?'.

[JesseAz]

Apply it to another doctrine the SCOTUS created from Roe. Can congress upend the definition of privacy as an end around to Roe? I bet you'll answer no.

[Gray_Jay]

Sure, Congress can come back and pass legislation meant to codify what Blackmun meant in his majority opinion. They are co-equal branches. If Congress wants to clarify that there's no such thing as an implied right to privacy, and pass legislation citing the Constitution that says such, they can. Doesn't mean the Supreme Court can't get back on that horse, though they generally try not to explicitly defy the other branches if said branches have reiterated their views.

I don't see anything inconsistent with your Roe example at all. Frankly, we'd be better off if Congress had been more explicit about it.

[Gray_Jay]

The fact that I am personally in favor of the right to have an abortion before the fetus is in the third trimester, doesn't mean I don't think Roe, and Griswold before it, are gigantic pieces of shit of judicial reasoning.

[Overt]

Roe was not an interpretation of law but of the constitution. The remedy for legislature in that case is amending the constitution

[Gray_Jay]

Non-concur, Overt.

Congress can draft legislation in light of that decision, that purports to take into account the implicit rights determined by the Scotus to exist, and parameterize said rights. Scotus doesn't get to tell Congress they can't pass legislation on a particular issue, until Scotus says so. They to get to opine that a given class of legislation, or subset of same, will be found to be unconstitutional.

[Squirrelloid]

SCOTUS does have final say in what the Constitution means, though. Congress can't pass legislation to change the meaning of the Constitution - that requires an Amendment.

So yes, the only appropriate way to 'remedy' to Roe would be an Amendment, if a remedy was deemed necessary.

Congress is of course free to pass unconstitutional laws, but SCOTUS will routinely strike them down as they get challenged.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Yes, qualified immunity is a legal doctrine created by SCOTUS but that does not mean Congress is powerless to act upon it. In particular, SCOTUS claimed that QI was needed because in their opinion, Section 1983 (dealing with civil rights violations) was "too broad". Well, Congress can now step in and clarify what they precisely mean by Section 1983: yes, yes it really does apply to police officers violating the civil rights of citizens during the course of their duties. That undermines the entire judicial rationale for QI.

[JesseAz]

I've already discussed the role Congress can play dummy. Prior to your post.

[jph12]

Sure, you discussed it, but as with virtually all your other claims you got the role Congress can play completely wrong. Your understanding of our system of government apparently lags behind that of an average (not even exceptional) 8 year old who watched a couple of episodes of Schoolhouse Rocks.

[JesseAz]

No I didnt. You've said nothing of actual worth in your argumentation. You point to one case written about by one analyst and ignore even recent QI cases as recently as last week.

You're a fool who thinks because he read something on the internet that agreed with him he is right.

[jph12]

Who is Samantha Harris? "[A]n attorney defending students and faculty whose free speech and due process rights have been violated by public university administrators, [who] can attest to the fact that qualified immunity is a huge barrier that limits accountability even in the case of seemingly obvious constitutional violations."

Who is JesseAz? Some moron on the internet who doesn't even know how a bill becomes a law.

[JesseAz]

You're my favorite type of legal idiot by the way, the one who doesnt think a legal argument has ever existed as you own the one true interpretation. Sure it has only been used on one singular case against a multitude of countering cases... but you have to be right.

You're as bad as jeffrey up there.

[jph12]

The fact that you have spent as long as you have commenting on a legal blog and learned so little is truly an impressive accomplishment.

"the one who doesnt think a legal argument has ever existed as you own the one true interpretation."

Normally it takes Sarcastr0 to spout off something so lacking in self-awareness.

[Gray_Jay]

Yeah, I'd slow my roll before crossing swords with jph12 on things legal.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

You're just going to justify whatever Team Red does. If Team Red gutlessly decides not to do anything about QI, then you'll just shift blame to SCOTUS or do your usual whataboutism trick. But you aren't ever going to call out Team Red for anything, are you?

[De Oppresso Liber]

The act is wearing out. The mask is falling off. Jesse and the other Trumpies are left with no cover now. The GOP has decided to go mask-off, declaring themselves against liberty and the rights of individual citizens. Jesse and the trumpsters are going to have to really contort to make this work. I don't think they can.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

In Jesse's case, he has always been nothing more than a pure Team Red shill. He will defend Josh Hawley for fuck's sake. Who is about as anti-liberty as your typical radical progressive. But you know, Hawley = Team R so must find a reason to justify his idiocy. But woke progressives are A THREAT TO THE UNION. At least Jesse doesn't claim to be anything more than a Team Red zombie so he has at least that going for him.

[R Mac]

Look at the fucking liars with their nighty night chat. So DOL isn’t Lying Jeffy, he’s Mike Laursen. Who’s Lying Jeffy.

[Tulpademic]

I am Tulpa. We are all Tulpa. He completes us.

[Tulpademic]

And, as with virtually all JesseAz’s claims, he served it up with a heaping serving of calling other people dummy and other insults. JesseAz is a hothead.

[Verbum Vincet]

I must say, I read that headline and knew I'd get about 3 comments in before the GOP/Trump apologists swarmed the board to, as someone down thread put it, 'provide the talking points we would've (or more accurately, wouldn't have) missed from Breitbart' and other Neocon propaganda outlets. Since I started reading Reason again, I see either:

A.) a concerted effort by GOP apparatchiks to use any means necessary - even hugely counterproductive means - to keep their party from hemorrhaging one-time voters who, thanks to nonsense like this bill, realize they really are no better than the Left.

Or,

B.) A brilliant reverse-troll by posters pretending to be GOPistas to make GOP supporters look like raving imbeciles possessing the logic of 3-year olds.

At any rate, everyone is entitled to argue their own beliefs. But when a given commenter predictably defends every action of a party or politician, 100% of the time, they tend to quickly lose credibility. Moreover, when every other comment is a brilliant Twitter-esque two-liner filled with excellent arguments like 'DUMMY (seriously?), SWEETIE, FOOL, DIPSHIT, etc., I simply ignore that poster's comments. I doubt I'm the only one.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Yes, and you're wrong. Congress can undermine SCOTUS' QI doctrine by clarifying that yes, Section 1983 does indeed apply to police officers performing their duties while on the clock. Then that becomes the new standard, not the judicial QI standard from 25+ years ago.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Bullshit. Like I said earlier, fucking embarrassing. Pretending like the GOP is doing anything here other than confirming that police are unaccountable. You don't value liberty, you value power for your perceived tribe. Fuck off, slaver.

[Nardz]

QI protects cops from criminal charges?

The Top Men you worship are the ones doing that

[R Mac]

You make up bullshit about people you can’t get along with, because most people can’t get along with pathological liars.

[Tulpademic]

Maybe someone who participates in the rain lame-ass so-and-so is so-and-so’s sock puppet lamery shouldn’t throw stones bout making up bullshit about people you cannot get along with.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

LAW & ORDER for everybody but those who impose the LAW & ORDER. Makes sense.

[BigGiveNotBigGov]

“Only in a police state is the job of a policeman easy.”
~ Orson Welles

[Tulpademic]

True. Or if you can land a police job in, say, Newport Beach. That’s not bad, either.

[Wearenotperfect]

"With Trump opposed too, there's little hope that a serious police reform bill will get through Congress anytime soon"

Well, I guess we'll try again next beatdown!

[JesseAz]

You think youd rage just as much at Pelosi for cutting out every GOP member of the judicial committee drafting their bill. But you dont. Such actions guarantee no reform. It is done with elite and a future talking point they can claim the right loves the police since the media wont cover the Tim Scott bill.

[DesigNate]

They’re already claiming, and their foot soldiers all over the internet breathlessly repeat it, that Republicans are the only people that support the police unions. Just ignore every single major city across the country being run by democrats and the police unions giving shit tons of financial support to both parties.

[Tulpademic]

Ah, there’s that whatabout chemjeff predicted you would use.

[God]

GOP won't touch qualified immunity because they know it's a game changer. We have to vote Republicans out of office.

[TJJ2000]

Freak-en hilarious.... If you cannot even get you're own DEMOCRATIC Mayor to stand up for your rights in State Legislation + Courts why the h*ll would you believe having that party in federal is going to help.????

From what I can gather from the above knowledge (excellent read) - QI is but a block-stop for frivolous federal cases against state police but doesn't interfere with State proceedings what-so-ever.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"I think there's going to be a Republican proposal and a Democrat proposal."

Until January. After that, the Democratic proposal will be the only one that matters.

So carry on, clingers . . . for six more months.

[Colossal Douchebag]

Open wider Rev. Nancy wants to sit on your face.

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

I hate to admit it, but he's right here.

Trump and the GOP could seize on this moment, and make a statement and help their electoral chances.

Instead, they will lose because they are daft.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

More bigoted than daft

[TJJ2000]

Problem is Republicans are hypocrites and bigoted because they preach on the right terms and far too often inflict the Democrats ideology. Electing the supporters of the Republican Curse is hardly an improvement.

[Sam Johnson's Ghost]

In relation to qualified immunity...the only way to overcome qualified immunity right now is if the there is a "clearly established" right that has been violated. And in White v. Pauley the Supreme Court said that the clearly established violation has be nearly identical to a case where a past right was violated. So, for example, in either Arizona or Nevada, a cop left a woman handcuffed and lying on hot pavement. She suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns. The courts held that there was qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law saying that cops can't leave a person handcuffed, lying on pavement. The court said, from that point forward, leaving someone lying on smoldering hot pavement would be violation of rights. However, because of White v. Pauley, if a cop left someone handcuffed and lying on sub-zero pavement and they got frostbite and lost several toes and fingers...that would not be a clearly established violation of rights because the cases are not "nearly identical." How outrageous is that?

[Juice]

Right. Legislation can fix this. Legislation could say "a cop does not have QI for the following actions..." and then list all the shit like theft, beating someone in handcuffs, rape, etc. Make it broad like "you can't handcuff a person then leave them in a place where they are then injured because they were left there." Now it's clearly established.

[Squirrelloid]

How about just 'No QI ever'. 'If an agent of the state is found to violate a person's constitutional rights, he can claim no immunity whatsoever for his actions. There shall be no defense against a 42 section 1983 claim except claiming that no constitutional violation occurred.'

Or just look at the key paragraph in Amash's bill.

[CZ Macure]

Oh yeah, Team Red.

The Team That Takes Liberty Real Serious-Like We Promise.

[JesseAz]

Pelosi isnt taking it seriously either dummy. She has cut out all GOP members of the judiciary committee in drafting the liberal bill. Sure way to eventual failure.

[Gray_Jay]

She might have enough votes to get it out of committee and the House. Depending on how much capital she wanted to burn. I can't see it. But she does, in theory, have the votes. Let Ds from pro law and order districts try to defend it in November. Assuming the public even cares about a QI-stripping vote in November.

[JesseAz]

Legislation isn't passed by just leaving the House. So no, legislation written solely by one party on either branch is not going to become law. She is utilizing this as a future political talking point. She knows a partisan House bill with no GOP input has a chance of passing to a signed law.

[Gray_Jay]

You don't think Schumer can find a few whiny Republicans to defect on this? He needs four. Again, if he were actually willing to burn some favors on it. Which he's not.

Hell, Collins is probably ready to sign whatever it is, now. Rand Paul probably has the brains to stay away, but maybe not. Go on down the list. Lots of squishy Republican Senators, in states with decent-sized, pissed-off black populations. I think he can find 4 if properly motivated. Which he won't be.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

WHATABOUTPELOSI!!!!!!!!!!!!

We all know you're just a Team Red mouthpiece but you might be able to find it within yourself to find a moment to at the minimum bemoan the lack of GOP interest in doing something about qualified immunity.

[JesseAz]

Nobody missed your sophistry.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh just shut up. You're shilling for Team Red and adding nothing to the conversation.

Team Red is not proposing to do a damn thing about QI. And you will just go along with it and use Pelosi as a scapegoat for GOP fecklessness.

[Gray_Jay]

No, Jesse's right. Nobody missed you or your voluminous socks.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh lol. I haven't posted here in quite a while now.
Jesse is a Team Red idiot whose only purpose here is to give us the talking points that we otherwise would have missed from Breitbart.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Look at his response above. It is "but it's SCOTUS' fault!" and "Pelosi is just as bad!" He won't say a damn thing about why Team Red isn't going to at least address the problems inherent in qualified immunity. He's going to go to bat for whatever Team Red proposes. If Team Red proposed to expand QI, Jesse would find a way to defend that too, while simultaneously claiming that he wasn't.

[Gray_Jay]

And flag.

It's like amukadari's here after all.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I don't know who amukadari is, I don't recognize that name. But if you fall for that idiotic claim that I have 10,000 socks that post here, well then you're as dumb as Tulpa.

[Tulpademic]

And that’s pretty dumb.

I still worship him, though. He enlightened me to the true way one should behave here: rude, disruptive, ensuring nothing of value to society happens here. All hail, tulpa!

[Tulpademic]

I missed chemjeff.

[Tulpademic]

His sophistry. Yeah, right. You are the one who played the whatabout card. Chemjeff even predicted you would before you did.

[Colossal Douchebag]

Can I get a police union high five! Winning!

[sarcasmic]

Republicans oppose holding police accountable for committing crimes, and Trump supporters concur.

No surprises here.

[pinki streigerz]

We like big black sex nürnberg

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

There should be zero immunity for anyone. We should all be subject to the same laws equally.

The only argument that I've heard that can be addressed if to empower juries to impose a penalty against plaintiffs and their lawyers who file bogus lawsuits. Losing a case would not be the determining factor. This would be an option for what the jury determines is a abuse of the legal system to file a frivolous lawsuit to hassle the defendant.

[sarcasmic]

It's my understanding, I could be wrong, that in the past judges would throw cases out without for being a waste of the court's time. Now they will entertain anything.

[sarcasmic]

without

[Kevin Smith]

If you aren't going to abolish qualified immunity at least abolish the court's practice of dismissing cases where there is no clearly established right. It prevents rights from becoming clearly established and sets up a trap that people can never escape from

[lacheto]

" Online Jobs 2020 Here ''

I've made $66,000 so far this year w0rking 0nline and I'm a full time student. I'm using an 0nline business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great m0ney. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it.

This is what I do......... More Detail

[awildseaking]

Why does everyone highlight Scott as the sole Black Republican in the Senate when Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are the only other Black senators?