The McCloskey's were also denied redress of the government by the USSC this week.
P.S. FR Rules require this "Conservative Brief" article to be placed in Bloggers section.
From just title read I thought it was an illegal doing the suing — good.
But after reading one sees this is VERY BAD for US citizens.
Damn the USSC.
After being abused myself as a young man by border patrol agents, I have had a bit of a problem with my attitude toward them since.
I’ve never had a positive interaction with border patrol. I’ve been held at the border and inland checkpoints several times and I’m as white as they come. Fortunately, each time I had my passport. They denied the validity of my military dependents’s ID card and my reserve ID card, claiming it doesn’t prove you are a citizen, which is true, but it does give reason to be in the US.
I’m not for open borders and I sympathize with border agents and their mission, but from my personal experience, many are less than kind.
“In other words, our government is beyond the reach of the people in our own courts.”
In other words, the USSC does not make laws.
I do not see anything that directly applies to that shooting.
Based on the utterly weird lethal wound she received, my first impression has always been that the Capitol Police Lieutenant accidentally pulled the trigger, which could have been charged as involuntary manslaughter.
The Supreme Court is the government. The idea that the government will consistently protect you against the government is insanely naive.
It is stupid to go after the individual agent and not the agency he worked for in this case CBP/DHS.
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.
Will Scotus release their Roe ruling just as Congress goes live with their sham wow show?
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.