The US Supreme Court Says Police Officers Can Use Force When They Feel its Warranted.

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

These SCOTUS rulings will probably renew calls for President Biden to push for "packing" the Supreme Court with more than 10 Justices, with most of the add-ons being Liberal Justices, of course.

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to police reform in two unanimous decisions on Monday, shielding officers from lawsuits accusing them of illegal brutality.

Both rulings endorse a nearly insurmountable version of qualified immunity, the doctrine that protects police and other state officials from suit, raising the bar even higher for victims of unconstitutional conduct.

The rulings are a major setback for the campaign to rein in qualified immunity and a clear signal that a majority of the court remains eager to protect violent officers from accountability.

Full article: slate.com...

I notice the article says "other state officials" are also now granted additional protection against being sued.

Does that mean the women who accused NY Governor Andrew Cuomo and former Senator/VP Joe Biden of sexual misconduct, now have no avenue to reach a legal remedy? I hope yesterday's SCOTUS ruling isn't THAT broad.

-CareWeMust

a reply to: carewemust

Hmm what do people do when they have a problem that can’t or won’t be dealt with for whatever reason peacefully and legally? What do they do? Forget about it and move on, write their congressman, talk to a priest, go bat # nuts?

a reply to: carewemust

I don't think that packing the Supreme Court could make it through the current Congress. I also keep reading articles, that when put together, give hope for a Republican take over of at least the house. It ultimately depends on how many Republican voters boycott the elections because of the big steal.

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: carewemust

Hmm what do people do when they have a problem that can’t or won’t be dealt with for whatever reason peacefully and legally? What do they do? Forget about it and move on, write their congressman, talk to a priest, go bat # nuts?

Because there's wide spectrum of personalities, you name it, and someone does it, when there's no law enforcement.

What that the question?

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: carewemust

I don't think that packing the Supreme Court could make it through the current Congress. I also keep reading articles, that when put together, give hope for a Republican take over of at least the house. It ultimately depends on how many Republican voters boycott the elections because of the big steal.

Democrats keep being dealt defeat after defeat. Yesterday, Joe Biden's own commission sided with "normal" Americans, by recommending the Supreme Court NOT be packed.

Story - thehill.com...

a reply to: carewemust

I would be careful listening to opinions of others about something that is readily available. for personal perusal. In this case, both Supreme Court case decisions are available and directly linked form the article itself.

From Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna (.pdf):

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

From Tahlequah v. Bond (.pdf):

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Both cases say the same thing: an officer has "qualified immunity" (which means he cannot be sued after the fact based on his split-second decision) if and only if he does not know that his actions are illegal or unconstitutional. His knowledge on that point must be "reasonable," as in, what a reasonable person would have believed. So a police officer who violates a suspect's Constitutional rights out of spite, or negligence, or anger, or just plain meanness does not have qualified immunity... but a police officer who is trying to follow the law and Constitution does, even if things go awry.

In other words, these decisions change nothing so far as court precedent goes. They only change things for those involved in the court case.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: carewemust

I also keep reading articles, that when put together, give hope for a Republican take over of at least the house. It ultimately depends on how many Republican voters boycott the elections because of the big steal.

According to "Real Clear Politics" analysis of history and polls, Democrats are going to be totally neutered next year.

Source: www.realclearpolitics.com...

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thanks for using your expertise to interpret the SCOTUS rulings.

They certainly pissed off THE SLATE.

See: slate.com...

And probably many other Liberal media outlets.

a reply to: carewemust

I read this article about the Supreme Court Commission draft report. It's not final and two conservative members have already quit.

Biden Commission On Packing Court...

In reality, the commission was divided, with some members supporting court packing and two of the few conservative members suddenly resigning Friday.

And this one:

Progressives fume...

"The commission has not edited the material and the material should not be understood to represent the commission's views or those of any particular commissioner," Bauer said. "To this point and particularly in light of some confusion and uncertainty since the posting of these materials, we refer you to the front page of each of the drafts that have been publicly posted that clearly set forth these points."

a reply to: carewemust

Well, I came by any legal "expertise" honestly... in my day, a hot-rodder had two options: learn the law and how it worked, or spend much too much time sitting in a small cell and much too much money paying out crazy fines. Guess which option I chose?

"If you can't outrun 'em, you'd better be able to out-think 'em." I did both.

TheRedneck

a reply to: carewemust

Democrats are going to be totally neutered next year.

You are assuming there are still actual elections instead of choreographed ballot creation. After 2020 I see nothing to indicate that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: carewemust

Im confused with the daily happenings here on ATS… are we pro the police state or against it? You guys need to make up your minds.

a reply to: tamusan
Thank-goodness we have the holiday season coming and a U.S. budget negotiation to tie up Congress these last 2.5 months of this year.

Their will for vacations (Congress only works 197 days @ year) outweighs almost everything else.

So let Biden's SCOTUS-packing study committee keep hashing things about. The clock is running out on them too.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: carewemust

Democrats are going to be totally neutered next year.

You are assuming there are still actual elections instead of choreographed ballot creation. After 2020 I see nothing to indicate that.

TheRedneck

Since Democrats in some swing states are angry about voting laws being changed, and even being arrested while protesting those changes, its safe to assume progress is being made in strengthening voting-election integrity.

Whenever Democrats in politics, or the ABC, CBS, etc., outlets are upset, that's good sign that progress is being made, no matter what the subject is.

originally posted by: Bunch
a reply to: carewemust

Im confused with the daily happenings here on ATS… are we pro the police state or against it? You guys need to make up your minds.

If you're confused, you're not alone. Many are. That's how life is. ATS reflects the real world of human thoughts.

originally posted by: Bunch
a reply to: carewemust

Im confused with the daily happenings here on ATS… are we pro the police state or against it? You guys need to make up your minds.

Not everything can be condensed to on-off.

Most people here take a non-polaristic view.

Consider every answer starts somewhere in the middle.

Not all Police are good. Not all Police are bad.

P

a reply to: carewemust

I suppose I’m asking when you can’t use the law or peace I’d imagine it’s either # off or violence. I imagine there’s a lot of pain involved, supposing I come from the angle that one goes through the system the right way being delayed for months and probably lots of time and money lost to find out “I’m sorry, officer privilege. Good bye”

It means they don’t even want to hear a grievance and they don’t care about your time. It’s all so clear. Avoid the police like you avoid other people spider sense says danger danger mr Robinson. It’s clear. Don’t call the cops call your neighbor if you got one you trust

Justice Sotomayor did not cast a dissent vote.
Does that not say something ?

Think recent events over the past years .
People forget.
That's what they do .

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: carewemust

Democrats are going to be totally neutered next year.

You are assuming there are still actual elections instead of choreographed ballot creation. After 2020 I see nothing to indicate that.

TheRedneck

Yes, that is our biggest issue. They must have just wrote in Lori Beatlejuice Lightfoot because I don't believe the majority of Chicago voters are stupid enough to believe her lies. The Dems apparently are doing that in every state and the R' in the Red states too I betya.

Do we set Floyd's so called "murderer" free then? He wins the appeal then because a multiple felon was committing another felony while smoking the Crack pipe all cracked up and crazy. The police are supposed to just get hurt and or die. Get hurt for low pay and for people who are so ignorant they hate you for helping them instead of doing their job is in a lot of these court cases. Clearly, the left wants to destroy the LEO organizations in general IMO while using the Fed level LEO's as their puppets thru coercion and blackmail. Power seekers of high placement are given power if they swear to the dark side from all we can tell. It is past time to dismantle the evil system that is full of infiltrators trying to destroy our way of life. We have the COTUS and will need to start from pre Civil War with our precedent rulings since we lost control of our nation to power mongers after that.

ETA:
The amendment process after the Civil War became tainted too. Getting to skip the part where states vote if it is to be a new amendment is going to void those amendments.

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: carewemust

I suppose I’m asking when you can’t use the law or peace I’d imagine it’s either # off or violence. I imagine there’s a lot of pain involved, supposing I come from the angle that one goes through the system the right way being delayed for months and probably lots of time and money lost to find out “I’m sorry, officer privilege. Good bye”

It means they don’t even want to hear a grievance and they don’t care about your time. It’s all so clear. Avoid the police like you avoid other people spider sense says danger danger mr Robinson. It’s clear. Don’t call the cops call your neighbor if you got one you trust