Read on Twitter
For those of you hailing the fact-checking of Trump& #39;s tweets, don& #39;t forget that fact checks are only as good as the fact checkers.
Here& #39;s an AP fact check from the July 2019 Democratic debates that misunderstands the premise so thoroughly that I don& #39;t even know where to begin.
Here& #39;s an AP fact check from the July 2019 Democratic debates that misunderstands the premise so thoroughly that I don& #39;t even know where to begin.
For folks who don& #39;t practice civil rights law regularly: Qualified immunity is a doctrine in civil suits against the government that dramatically raises the standard for when you can recover money for constitutional violations. (I guess this is turning into a mini-thread.) 2/
The constitutional violation must be "clearly established" as a violation of the Constitution at the time it occurs. Believe it or not, this actually matters in a lot of cases, even when you think it shouldn& #39;t. 3/
Take this case, Mullenix v. Luna. It& #39;s not all that out of the ordinary for qualified immunity cases.
Police shot and killed the driver of a car in a chase. The driver& #39;s estate sued the police department, claiming excessive force. 4/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullenix_v._Luna">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mull...
Police shot and killed the driver of a car in a chase. The driver& #39;s estate sued the police department, claiming excessive force. 4/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullenix_v._Luna">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mull...
The trial court found Mullenix, the officer, liable, and the appeals court agreed.
The Supreme Court reversed, because SHOOTING AT A MOVING CAR to stop the driver was not "clearly established" as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. 5/
The Supreme Court reversed, because SHOOTING AT A MOVING CAR to stop the driver was not "clearly established" as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. 5/
In doing so, the Court relied not on a finding that shooting a moving car was constitutional, but that in the past, shooting at a moving car was found to be "not clearly established" as a constitutional violation.
Does this sound like some circular logic? I hope so. 6/
Does this sound like some circular logic? I hope so. 6/
As you might imagine, there was an impassioned dissent in Mullenix.
But it was a solo dissent by Justice Sotomayor. Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer all signed onto the majority opinion (which was released per curiam, so we have no idea who wrote it). 7/
But it was a solo dissent by Justice Sotomayor. Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer all signed onto the majority opinion (which was released per curiam, so we have no idea who wrote it). 7/
There are plenty more horrors embedded in the qualified immunity doctrine, but I don& #39;t want this thread to be 150 tweets long.
It -is- important to know, though, that qualified immunity isn& #39;t from a statute. It& #39;s a completely judge-made doctrine. 8/
It -is- important to know, though, that qualified immunity isn& #39;t from a statute. It& #39;s a completely judge-made doctrine. 8/
Now "judicial activism" is usually just code for "thing I don& #39;t like from a court", but qualified immunity fits almost any definition. It was never passed by a legislature, and it prohibits people from enforcing their rights, undercutting the guarantees of the Constitution. 9/
