mtswIf conservative radicals who've stolen our courts were actually "originalists" they would take a very dim view of the government arresting people for no reason. "You cannot arrest someone without a good reason" is like the literal oldest thing in Common Law. But instead the doctrine is the nonsensical Qualified Immunity of "cops can do whatever they want to with no consequences." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-ohio-mans-bid-sue-police-arrest-facebook-parody-rcna70435
Like I'm not a lawyer but I don't even see what this has to do with the First Amendment one way or another. "The cops physically took my body and placed it in jail on a false and legally batshit basis because they were mad at me" like that seems like it's plenty?
Why is there a burden of proof on this guy to prove that his post was protected speech? Why should the burden of proof be on a citizen to prove the cops shouldn't be allowed to arrest him on trumped up charges? What are we even doing here
Clinical Rawlsian@mtsw I find it pretty incredible that so many conservatives –including the six conservative SCOTUS members –don't seem to understand that elites adopted ideas like habeus corpus to prevent the state and its armed agents from harming not just everyday citizens but elites themselves. Throughout history, many rich and powerful people have been exiled, imprisoned, maimed or killed by authoritarians who felt threatened or challenged by them.
@mtsw For example, I just watched a video on YouTube about how Richard III basically just disappeared his two nephews (one of whom was the child King of England) during the War of the Roses because they stood between him and the crown. And nobody said or did anything about it in large part because the power of the monarch was so absolute. https://youtube.com/shorts/thatCgB_5kY?feature=share
The Princes In The Tower
Nerd That Talks Good@MadMadMadMadRN
Can we skip to that part, then?
Can we skip to that part, then?
Jason Petersen (he)@mtsw we don’t believe in the fourth or eighth amendment and we haven’t in some time
americanjeff@mtsw From reading the article it seems clear to me that for the police using his post as a pretense for arresting him under that state law was a violation of the first amendment. The ruling is 100% bs because they should have known that and should not have gotten QI.
@mtsw As a little thought experiment, I sometimes like to wonder what it would be like if we took the reasoning behind qualified immunity for police and applied it to other fields.
Like, what if it was impossible to sue a doctor unless a doctor had previously been successfully sued for the exact same mistake.
Of course, this would never happen because, just like the poor and powerless, the rich and powerful also get sick and want to preserve some form of redress for medical malpractice.
M.S. Bellows, Jr.@MadMadMadMadRN @mtsw TBF, "Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
@msbellows @mtsw Where does the money come from to pay settlements and awards for damages caused by officials' actions?
Given that police unions have in many places made it impossible for problematic officers to be disciplined or terminated and that there is effectively no civilian control of police in much of the country, this seems like a distinction without a difference.
@MadMadMadMadRN @mtsw It means that the cities/PDs themselves may still be liable, so the victims and their families may still receive compensation. Strictly speaking, QA only protects individual officers.
You S Blues@MadMadMadMadRN @mtsw I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the notion that you can be arrested and charge with ONLY the crime of ‘resisting arrest’. How does that even work?
Badwolf303@mtsw @MadMadMadMadRN Check tort reform that limits pay outs for medical malpractice to $250k in many states unless wrongful death can be proven. Hint: misdiagnosed cancer isn’t considered wrongful death in #kansas if the cancer would’ve been terminal anyway.
#medicalmalpractice #tortreform #patientsrights #cancer #glioma
Urban Futurist Democrat@mtsw Alito in 1775: The grenadier had no way of knowing he was not allowed to fire into a crowd on Whitsunday specifically
Roger Moore@mtsw
The most obvious thing about this is that qualified immunity is something completely made up by the courts in defiance of the obvious reading of statute law. It's exactly the kind of judicial activism "conservatives" claim to hate.
The most obvious thing about this is that qualified immunity is something completely made up by the courts in defiance of the obvious reading of statute law. It's exactly the kind of judicial activism "conservatives" claim to hate.
isaacs
xs4me2Very worrying, this…
Matt@mtsw I’m baffled by the court’s decision. How is this not a straightforward 1st amendment violation?
Thomas Alexander Hawk@mtsw note to self: not blasting “F* the Police” = smart move no matter how much I want to when they roll up
LeighG@mtsw I'm also waiting for these let's go back to 1780 folks to tell us where they draw the line. Plumbing? Electricity? Cars? Planes? Pantaloons? Powdered wigs? Are we going back to horse and buggy, dirt roads, mule drawn plows? And if there are modern conveniences allowed then how they are actually restoring "the original"?