There’s a lot to do if/when we get past all *this*, but a requirement to run as a Democrat should be support for codifying Bivens. (If federal officials deprive you of clearly established constitutional rights, you should have the same remedies as when Georgia or Utah officials do. Winning issue.)
Is he okay in health and how is his mother and and emotional health?! I hope he's okay-ish!!!
*** Mind NOT Mother*** that's a typo! 🙄 Although if his Mom's alive, I'm sure she's upset too!
I'm interested in a project that collects these type of expectations into a list. And a warning to the current regime. As in: 1) We will investigate the many corrupt acts 2) We will reestablish the DOJ as an independent organization. Etc.
Gotta get rid of qualified immunity too.
Thank you for your work! We didn't think anyone would be freed from CECOT.
Dear lord we should absolutely not codify the "clearly established" qualified immunity doctrine nonsense.
Haha, I agree. But i don’t think codifying Bivens (more specifically, adding the words “or of the United States” to Sec. 1983) necessarily codifies qualified immunity. All it would do is ensure a remedy in those already rare cases where QI doesn’t apply. Point taken though.
The text in that bill is fine. No need to validate the judicially conjured immunity for cops. Ideally, they should also insert ", and we do mean any," between "any" and "rights" in 1983.
this is referring to the idea that section 1983 only applies to the states and amending it so it apllies to the federal government.
Yeah, I was just commenting on his description of what should be codified.
i think you responded to the wrong comment then.
???
i think this is the comment you meant to reply to. bsky.app/profile/davi...
I didn't see that comment, I was replying to this in the original post that I replied to
oh, i see. i glossed over the clearly established bit.
Yeah, I think OP should've just said we need to amend 42 USC 1983 to include the United States, and leave the "codify Bivens" part out of it.
As long as they're doing it, they ought to give a clear definition of "clearly established" -- perhaps a "right declared by the federal courts (district, circuit, or Supreme) in the district of occurence" applied to "cases of the same nature as the instant case." How's that for quick drafting?
no, how about: "this is strict liability, there are no immunity or affirmative defenses to violations"
No self-defense to a police brutality charge? C'mon.
if a government official violates your constitutional rights, they should be liable. that's it, end of inquiry. i don't care what you were doing, or how obscure, or what the situation was. rights violation=government liability.
Does this apply personally to the honcho in charge when they use their "Federal Authority" to maliciously or politically knowingly violate civilians? When they tell the Courts, "Fuck You" (hey Emil Bove) ? Because we need that now. Retroactively.
Everyone they sent to El Salvador was sent there illegally & without due process.
So relieved they finally let him go!