Skip to main content

Why We Should End Qualified Immunity


 What is qualified immunity?

 Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials from liability for civil damages in cases where they violate someone's constitutional rights. The doctrine was created by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, and it has been used to protect police officers, prison guards, and other government officials from being held accountable for their actions.

Why We Should End Qualified Immunity.

There are a number of reasons why we should end qualified immunity. First, the doctrine allows government officials to violate people's rights with impunity. If a government official violates someone's constitutional rights, they can simply claim qualified immunity and avoid any legal consequences. This means that there is no real accountability for government officials who abuse their power.

Second, qualified immunity allows government officials to get away with even the most egregious acts of misconduct. In recent years, there have been numerous cases of police officers shooting unarmed civilians, using excessive force, and engaging in other forms of brutality. In many of these cases, the officers have been able to avoid liability by claiming qualified immunity. This is simply unacceptable.

Third, qualified immunity undermines public trust in government. When people see that government officials are not held accountable for their actions, it erodes their confidence in the system. This can lead to a breakdown in law and order, and it can make it more difficult for government to function effectively.

Conclusion:

For all of these reasons, we should end qualified immunity. It is a legal doctrine that protects government officials from being held accountable for their actions, and it undermines public trust in government. We need to end qualified immunity and hold government officials accountable for their actions. 


Popular posts from this blog

Preliminary findings after reading the Durham report

  After reading the report: 1. Did not exonerate Trump. 1. Did not exonerate Trump. 2. Made no suggestion for criminal charges beyond the ones made in an earlier iteration and noted below. 3. Durham found no reason for opening a full investigation into Trump/Russian collaboration at that time. 4. Suggested that the FBI should have opened a preliminary investigation. The implication being that a preliminary investigation would have led to a full investigation. 5. Durham said that it was possible that the FBI needed to put some reforms in place. In addition, the investigation as a whole did see an earlier iteration that made 3 criminal charges: One plead guilty, the 2 others were tried and acquitted. I am awaiting the Durham appearance before congress to do a full report. I have an inescapable sense that there is something else going on here. Similarities between this report and the Müller report like something is being left out of the story by both. Somewhere in my reading, I ran ac...
Read more

Problems for Federalism if States Can't Determine Eligibility

If the court rules that individual states can not determine eligibility the door would be open to all third parties for ballot access challenges. The court would have to set up or help to establish federal rules to determine eligibility requirements or face a flood of challenges for all 50 states. That seems to be a nail in the coffin of Federalism. A Trump victory in SCOTUS would set up a 50 state rush of indie candidates who would take eligibility questions to the high court. To avoid that they would have to legislate from the bench or convince Congress to legislate an end to Federalism!
Read more

Trump Win Fueled By Whimpering Democrats!

That is the headline I expect to see post-election  It's too early to see the full effect of the debate, but the most morose of the Commentary I have seen came from Democrats early after the event. It was that on which the pundit class based its commentary!  It seems the only way media on either side of politics comments is Democratic self-loathing! The first ten things I read from the right this morning were the whimpering comments from the left about how they lost and needed to change course! Their self-deprecating made it as bad as they perceived!  Tragically the debate was bad but not as bad as the dems made it out to be. It was one tiny data point in the face of a megalomaniacal cartoon-style villain, a felon with 34 felonies and multiple remaining felony indictments who incited an election overthrow to dispossess the votes of 81 million voters!
Read more