this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
1263 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19239 readers
2828 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Igotz80HDnImWinning@kbin.social 184 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The people have fucking spoken.

[–] muddybulldog@lemmy.world 99 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Three times!

Elected, reinstated, reelected!

[–] Goodie@lemmy.world 81 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The people have spoken, and shockingly republicans spent a fuck load of the tax payers money to be sure that they didn't misspeak.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

'Taxpayer money.'

They'll do unlimited court attacks, knowing that they can't actually be forced to pay for the nonsense.

If you made police unions liable for police violence, you'd see a rapid drop in aggressive policing.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

So perhaps fight fire with fire and force them to uphold the law as written, and ignore the SCOTUS decision made in error.

16 Crucial Words That Went Missing From a Landmark Civil Rights Law

The phrase, seemingly deleted in error, undermines the basis for qualified immunity, the legal shield that protects police officers from suits for misconduct.

By Adam Liptak Reporting from Washington

May 15, 2023

In a routine decision in March, a unanimous three-judge panel of a federal appeals court ruled against a Texas inmate who was injured when the ceiling of the hog barn he was working in collapsed. The court, predictably, said the inmate could not overcome qualified immunity, the much-criticized legal shield that protects government officials from suits for constitutional violations.

The author of the decision, Judge Don R. Willett, then did something unusual. He issued a separate concurring opinion to draw attention to the “game-changing arguments” in a recent law review article, one that seemed to demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s entire qualified immunity jurisprudence was based on a mistake.

“Wait, what?” Judge Willett wrote, incredulous.

In 1871, after the Civil War, Congress enacted a law that allowed suits against state officials for violations of constitutional rights. But the Supreme Court has said that the law, usually called Section 1983, did not displace immunities protecting officials that existed when the law was enacted. The doctrine of qualified immunity is based on that premise.

But the premise is wrong, Alexander A. Reinert, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, wrote in the article, “Qualified Immunity’s Flawed Foundation,” published in The California Law Review.

Between 1871, when the law was enacted, and 1874, when a government official produced the first compilation of federal laws, Professor Reinert wrote, 16 words of the original law went missing. Those words, Professor Reinert wrote, showed that Congress had indeed overridden existing immunities.

“What if the Reconstruction Congress had explicitly stated — right there in the original statutory text — that it was nullifying all common-law defenses against Section 1983 actions?” Judge Willett asked. “That is, what if Congress’s literal language unequivocally negated the original interpretive premise for qualified immunity?”

The original version of the law, the one that was enacted in 1871, said state officials who subject “any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, shall, any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the state to the contrary notwithstanding, be liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

The words in italics, for reasons lost to history, were omitted from the first compilation of federal laws in 1874, which was prepared by a government official called “the reviser of the federal statutes.”

“The reviser’s error, whether one of omission or commission, has never been corrected,” Judge Willett wrote.

The logic of the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity jurisprudence is that Congress would not have displaced existing immunities without saying so. But Professor Reinert argued that Congress did say so, in so many words.

“The omitted language confirms that the Reconstruction Congress in 1871 intended to provide a broad remedy for civil rights violations by state officials,” Professor Reinert said in an interview, noting that the law was enacted soon after the three constitutional amendments ratified after the Civil War: to outlaw slavery, insist on equal protection and guard the right to vote.

“Along with other contemporaneous evidence, including legislative history, it helps to show that Congress meant to fully enforce the Reconstruction Amendments via a powerful new cause of action,” Professor Reinert said.

Judge Willett, who was appointed by President Donald J. Trump, focused on the words of the original statute “in this text-centric judicial era when jurists profess unswerving fidelity to the words Congress chose.”

Qualified immunity, which requires plaintiffs to show that the officials had violated a constitutional right that was clearly established in a previous ruling, has been widely criticized by scholars and judges across the ideological spectrum. Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, wrote that it does not appear to resemble the immunities available in 1871.

Professor Reinert’s article said that “is only half the story.”

“The real problem,” he wrote, “is that no qualified immunity doctrine at all should apply in Section 1983 actions, if courts stay true to the text adopted by the enacting Congress.”

Joanna Schwartz, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the author of “Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable,” said that “there is general agreement that the qualified immunity doctrine, as it currently operates, looks nothing like any protections that may have existed in 1871.” The new article, she said, identified “additional causes for skepticism.”

She added that “Judge Willett’s concurring opinion has brought much-needed, and well-deserved, attention to Alex Reinert’s insightful article.”

Judge Willett wrote that he and his colleagues are “middle-management circuit judges” who cannot overrule Supreme Court decisions. “Only that court,” he wrote, “can definitively grapple with Section 1983’s enacted text and decide whether it means what it says.”

Lawyers for the injured Texas inmate, Kevion Rogers, said they were weighing their options.

“The scholarship that Judge Willett unearthed in his concurrence is undoubtedly important to the arguments that civil rights litigants can make in the future,” the lawyers, Matthew J. Kita and Damon Mathias, said in a statement.

“Normally,” they added, “you cannot raise a new argument for reversal for the first time on appeal, much less at the Supreme Court of the United States. But one would think that if the Supreme Court acknowledges that it has been reciting and applying the statute incorrectly for nearly a century, there must be some remedy available to litigants whose judgments are not yet final.”

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. @adamliptak • Facebook

A version of this article appears in print on May 16, 2023, Section A, Page 15 of the New York edition with the headline: 16 Crucial Words That Went Missing From a Landmark Civil Rights Law.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 120 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The young Black lawmakers were reinstated by local officials after being booted from the GOP-dominated Statehouse, but only on an interim basis.

Thursday’s election came as lawmakers are preparing to return to Nashville later this month for a special session to address possibly changing the state’s gun control laws.

While Jones and Pearson’s reelection to their old posts won’t make a significant dent to the Republican supermajority inside the Legislature, they are expected to push back heavily against some of their GOP colleagues’ policies.

It wasn’t until this spring that their political careers received a boost when they joined fellow Democrat Rep. Gloria Johnson in a protest for more gun control on the House floor.

The demonstration took place just days after a fatal shooting in Nashville at a private Christian school where a shooter killed three children and three adults.

The move briefly left about 140,000 voters in primarily Black districts in Nashville and Memphis with no representation in the Tennessee House.


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] fence_prude@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] wetnoodle@sopuli.xyz 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right?? I was about to thank the dude for such a thoughtful tldr but it's just a bot

[–] Wodge@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

You can still thank the bot, probably puts you in their good books when AI takes over.

[–] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago

Fuck yeah! These guys were impressive before all the bullshit went down, and it just made them even more motivated. It also forced them to be fully empowered by their constituency, multiple times, which is just the icing on the cake. Can’t wait to see what they get up to!

Side note, I dare you to listen to Pearson and/or Jones for more than a few minutes and not tear up. They’re legitimately inspiring and damn good at their jobs.

[–] taanegl@lemmy.ml 58 points 1 year ago (5 children)

You okay, US? Been removing voting locales, preventing people from getting hydrated when standing in line, literally trying to prevent the end of an election cycle and now... this.

Democracy, does that mean anything anymore over there, or is it just decorative?

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're are learning that building a government based on the idea that the members of that government will act in good faith was fucking stupid.

Here's to hoping we can figure out how to solve the bad-faith problem without Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo.

[–] catshit_dogfart@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You know, I've heard it said that democracies founded in Europe after WW2 had an advantage because they could see the result of mistakes in the USA's founding.

Like clearly X, Y, and Z was a mistake that they couldn't have known at the time - but now we know better, so let's not repeat that.

[–] ProfessorScience@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

No, we are not ok. Please send help.

[–] Psythik@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Hey, don't lump the rest of the country in with these ass-backward hillbillies. This kind of shit only happens in red states.

[–] inpotheenveritas@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It was fucked when they were expelled buy that collection of racist idiots. This took a while to happen, but I'm relieved the second rep regained his seat.

[–] OttoVonBizmarkie@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

This makes me happy!

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is excellent news. America needs to keep fighting back.

I didn’t realize they were both named Justin. Good job, Justins.

[–] cedarmesa@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SFX@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those two have immaculate hair!

[–] GiddyGap@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Just one of many great features.

[–] SpeedLimit55@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I am not a fan of gun control but I am a fan of free speech. I am glad these young men are back in office. Opposing views are important for democracy.

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bit hypocritical that you're into vehicle control SpeedLimit55

[–] SpeedLimit55@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago
[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (41 children)

Out of curiosity, why are you ~~against~~ not a fan of gun control?

What kind of gun control laws do you think people are trying to pass that you would consider unnecessary or dangerous?

load more comments (41 replies)
[–] nostalgicgamerz@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about the 3rd one?….🤔

[–] ted@sh.itjust.works 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Sami_Uso@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How strange, I wonder what was different about the third one as opposed to these two guys...

[–] ki77erb@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (7 children)

ooooo! ooooo! I know! 👋

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago

I can tell you what wasn't different. It wasn't her skin color. /s

[–] nostalgicgamerz@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh that’s awesome

Edit: that’s right, I forgot the expulsion was racially motivated

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Good they deserve it.

[–] Mikey_donuts@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Good! We need more people like them in government.

load more comments
view more: next ›