Posted on 06/09/2022 8:55:51 AM PDT by CodeToad
What boggles me is that a border agent roughed up a co-operating business owner because the agent screwed up. Then when the business owner complains to the agent’s superiors, the agent makes retaliatory complaints to DMV and the IRS and his superiors do nothing.
This is why law enforcement is held in such low repute. Stop tolerating the dickheads.
This is one I disagree with Thomas on.
He suggests thet while we do have some Constitutional rights, but if they are violated you lack redress in the courts for their violation unless Congress has said you can go to court over them. He points to a 1971 case which involved non-federal officers and a federal law that claims to “permit” suits for violation of Constitutional rights by such officers, and notes no comparable federal law has “granted permission” for such suits against federal offices.
I thought our rights came from the Constitution, not Congress, and even Congress cannot abridge them nor deny our place in court when it does.
I just posted excerpts from the decision. So I obviously read it.
You don’t even know what a Bivens claim is.
Leave the lawyering to professionals, lol.
I have very great sympathies for conservative justices arguing against creating legislation, but isn’t the very problem at the heart of all these abuse-by-government claims the fact that Congress has to grant rights to private citizens to avoid being beaten up by rogue LEOs. Natural law, anyone?
LOL! Perfection.
“You obviously did not read the decision nor the dissenting opinions.”
What did your heros, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer say?
“The decisions placed yet another burden of test to insulate the government from lawsuits.”
No. The decisions upheld existing law.
Like your liberal buddies, you desire that the courts make law.
Will Scotus release their Roe ruling just as Congress goes live with their sham wow show?
Only if GOD has a great sense of humor :)
Was this on a qualified immunity defense?
Because qualified immunity can only be broken if there exists a ruling, in the governing Federal Circuit, that the behaviour the government acted engaged in, violated an already established Constitutional right when it occurred.
“Leave the lawyering to professionals, lol.”
We should be shooting the lawyers as they have created this pretzel of a decision that prohibits recourse against the government unless the government says so.
“Leave the lawyering to professionals, lol.”
The Founding Fathers were not “professionals”, just men who knew how to make a great society, unlike lawyers who only look to scam the system.
In every case, even this one, there are lots of attorneys involved and no one agreed, so you might want to get off your high horse and realize not even the “professionals” agreed here.
Folks, this thread is a great example of why you shouldn’t let Qtards and Qtard blogs guide you on Constitutional law.
I understand that Qtards can barely process english, and they can’t process what Thomas is writing in his opinion, but anyone interested in the truth really should read his opinion rather than the grifter trash blog headline.
The courts were never intended to make law. That’s up to Congress. Congress makes policy. Courts do not. Our Constitution’s separation of powers prohibits federal
courts from assuming legislative authority.
There is a reason that Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor dissented here. They believe that the court should invent law and take power that the Founders never intended for the Courts to have.
Isn’t it interesting that the Qtards are siding with the far-left communists here?
The court makes law all the time. Stop pissing on our legs and telling us it is raining.
The court could easily have said the people have the right to compensation for violations of their constitutional rights. Instead, they twisted the law along with congress to claim unless congress allows a lawsuit specific to an act there can be no lawsuit.
Again, first thing in a revolution: Shoot the lawyers.
” grifter trash blog headline”
I usually see idiots try to use credentials as a means to either say they are right or someone else’s credentials to say they are wrong.
Your credentials should be able to have you make a logical argument. Ad hominem attacks on credentials always means you are weak on arguments.
It is a good thing in corporate executive spaces that credentials do not appear on signature lines. No one cares your credentials, they care about your arguments. You don’t because you have a credential. I usually find women try that crap.
If anyone wants the comprehensive treatment on WHY courts are not supposed to be in the business of creating law, I invite you to read this:
https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_resources/documents/a-to-z/s/scalia97.pdf
It’s written well beyond the ability of the dumbs and trailer trash to process, but for the more reasonable folks, it might help you to process why the court did what it did here.
LOL! There’s some who have in the past stated they take pride in not reading the article, but just post based on the headline.They seemed serious - well as serious as a mouth breather can be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.