This happened in 2016 and thus far the mother has lost in the courts and the police are still employed:
Is this something that she could try to bring to the SCOTUS? Just trying to understand how this works?
This happened in 2016 and thus far the mother has lost in the courts and the police are still employed:
Is this something that she could try to bring to the SCOTUS? Just trying to understand how this works?
The Supreme Court won’t overturn the doctrine of qualified immunity. It’s on the legislative branch to fix.
This statement is from the link:
Godbey based his decision, signed Monday, on the controversial doctrine of qualified immunity. Under that standard, Timpa’s family had to identify a specific case in the Fifth Circuit court of appeals that clearly established that the officers’ conduct at the time was unconstitutional.
Isn’t the SCOTUS the final say on that?
The Supreme Court created the modern doctrine of qualified immunity, back in 1977.
But it’s on Congress - and more realistically, state legislatures to create laws to change it.
The judiciary is a huge part of the problem. Who replaced probable cause with “reasonable suspicion”?
Saying that the Judiciary is a part of the problem is like saying Congress is part of the problem.
While a true statement, it is nonetheless meaningless.
It is not meaningless, it is the mechanism.
It is not meaningless, it is the mechanism.
So is Congress. So is the President.
These are the mechanisms of government. Some of them, at least.
WuWei:It is not meaningless, it is the mechanism.
So is Congress. So is the President.
These are the mechanisms of government. Some of them, at least.
The judiciary are the final arbiters. The issuers of warrants. The enablers.
The judiciary are the final arbiters. The issuers of warrants. The enablers.
Yes. Someone has to be.
WuWei:The judiciary are the final arbiters. The issuers of warrants. The enablers.
Yes. Someone has to be.
They exist to protect rights, not to enable agents of the state to violate them.
They exist to protect rights, not to enable agents of the state to violate them.
If you are saying that the Judiciary has gotten things wrong, I certainly agree.
WuWei:They exist to protect rights, not to enable agents of the state to violate them.
If you are saying that the Judiciary has gotten things wrong, I certainly agree.
They are the final protective barrier and they intentionally failed
They are the final protective barrier and they intentionally failed
Humanity is infinitely fallible.
WuWei:They are the final protective barrier and they intentionally failed
Humanity is infinitely fallible.
They didn’t fail us as individuals, it is systemic.
They didn’t fail us as individuals, it is systemic.
If you could build a Judicial system from the ground up, how would you do it?
WuWei:They didn’t fail us as individuals, it is systemic.
If you could build a Judicial system from the ground up, how would you do it?
Great question. I would start with the law schools. Ivy League would be a mark against. They’re cookies from the same cutter.
Get rid of the Bar.
All Law Schools teach from the same case books and the same laws. They’re all the same cookie-cutter.
The Ivies just have the best teachers - they’re sharper.
Get rid of the Bar.
Replace it with what?