zlacker

[return to "As Qualified Immunity Takes Center Stage, More Delay from SCOTUS"]
1. Burnin+2v[view] [source] 2020-06-01 18:19:23
>>mnm1+(OP)
Just so we know what we're talking about, here is a description of the 13 Qualified Immunity cases that may get to the Supreme Court soon.

https://www.cato.org/blog/may-15th-supreme-court-will-finall...

Sample:

Jessop v. City of Fresno. In this case, the Ninth Circuit granted immunity to police officers who stole over $225,000 in cash and rare coins in the course of executing a search warrant. The court noted that while “the theft [of] personal property by police officers sworn to uphold the law” may be “morally wrong,” the officers could not be sued for the theft because the Ninth Circuit had never issued a decision specifically involving the question of “whether the theft of property covered by the terms of a search warrant, and seized pursuant to that warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment.”

◧◩
2. abduhl+5w[view] [source] 2020-06-01 18:25:16
>>Burnin+2v
If Congress is considering legislation to change QI then the Supreme Court has little reason to take up these cases. SCOTUS should stay silent when the legislative branch is at work to correct something that was a judicial creation or when it looks like Congress intends to legislate in an issue.

Edit: I will just reply to all of the comments downthread at once because they all seem to urge the same thing. SCOTUS has no incentive to act when the legislative branch is doing something that could easily overturn or not align with their decision, which would render their decision moot. A law that Congress passes overrules any and all SCOTUS precedent on the issue because Congress "legislates against the backdrop of the common law." Further, Congress has the ability to move much faster than SCOTUS: a bill could be passed on less than a month in Congress while it will take at least a year for SCOTUS to reach a decision.

◧◩◪
3. bobbyd+QV[view] [source] 2020-06-01 20:37:53
>>abduhl+5w
You misunderstand the law completely in your comment and your edit. Congress (with good reason) doesn't get to shape the boundaries of constitutional law (for example the doctrine of qualified immunity we're discussing here).

That is specifically and only in the hands of the court, unless you want to amend the constitution.

◧◩◪◨
4. pdonis+Rd1[view] [source] 2020-06-01 22:13:00
>>bobbyd+QV
> That is specifically and only in the hands of the court, unless you want to amend the constitution.

The Constitution nowhere says that the Supreme Court has the sole ability or power to "shape the boundaries of constitutional law". It grants the Supreme Court "judicial power", but judicial power is not the only power related to the law.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. bobbyd+8B1[view] [source] 2020-06-02 01:07:05
>>pdonis+Rd1
Check out Marbury v. Madison.
[go to top]