You are of course correct. The whole point of the ruling was that it was the job of CONGRESS and not the courts to create new causes of action.
“At bottom, creating a cause of action is a legislative en- deavor. Courts engaged in that unenviable task must evaluate a “range of policy considerations . . . at least as broad as the range . . . a legislature would consider.”
“When asked to imply a Bivens action, “our watchword is caution.” “[I]f there are sound reasons to think Congress might doubt the efficacy or necessity of a damages rem- edy[,] the courts must refrain from creating [it].”
Far too many people here read a headline or a blog and then respond with appropriate NPC programming that they download from said blog without having a clue about the real issues involved.
I commend you for not succumbing to this temptation.
Thank you!
You obviously did not read the decision nor the dissenting opinions.
The decisions placed yet another burden of test to insulate the government from lawsuits. The court has tied itself into a pretzel trying to do that.
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.