zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. hnick+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-04 03:41:22
Qualified immunity is qualified, not absolute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

"Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in United States federal law that shields government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violated "clearly established" federal law or constitutional rights. Qualified immunity thus protects officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions", but does not protect "the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law"."

Is the bill of rights not "clearly established"? They've had long enough.

To me the phrasing seems clear, it's a lack of political will that's the issue. Not the law.

replies(1): >>zucker+2K1
2. zucker+2K1[view] [source] 2020-06-04 16:44:30
>>hnick+(OP)
The standard of the Supreme Court has established for "clearly established" is very hard to meet. For most cases, there has to a prior court cases with facts that match closely with the case at hand. For example,

https://reason.com/2020/05/19/qualified-immunity-supreme-cou...

Plus, I've seen little textual basis for qualified immunity at all.

[go to top]