Read on Twitter
For those of you hailing the fact-checking of Trump's tweets, don't forget that fact checks are only as good as the fact checkers.
Here's an AP fact check from the July 2019 Democratic debates that misunderstands the premise so thoroughly that I don't even know where to begin.
Here's an AP fact check from the July 2019 Democratic debates that misunderstands the premise so thoroughly that I don't even know where to begin.
For folks who don'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't. 3/
Take this case, Mullenix v. Luna. It'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's estate sued the police department, claiming excessive force. 4/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullenix_v._Luna
Police shot and killed the driver of a car in a chase. The driver's estate sued the police department, claiming excessive force. 4/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullenix_v._Luna
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't want this thread to be 150 tweets long.
It -is- important to know, though, that qualified immunity isn't from a statute. It's a completely judge-made doctrine. 8/
It -is- important to know, though, that qualified immunity isn't from a statute. It's a completely judge-made doctrine. 8/
Now "judicial activism" is usually just code for "thing I don'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/
