Are Legislative, Judicial, and Law Enforcement Immunity The Problem?

Are legislative, judicial, and law enforcement immunity doing more harm than good?

In this piece we'll look at whether the inability, based upon their specific levels of immunity, to hold legislators, judges, and law enforcement accountable for their actions when those actions are detrimental to our nations's fabric and needlessly are costing people their lives. The old adage about absolute power corrupting absolutely fits when we look at how these government actors are protected from the damaging results of their acts.

Especially when it comes to innocent people dying. And thanks to immunity, we're now seeing people die because of abuse of power.

I spent 30 years conducting civil plaintiff investigations for attorneys, including numerous cases involving police shootings and other misconduct. I also spent several years conducting investigations for the New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission looking into allegations of acts violating their code of conduct by judges. And finally, I've conducted hundreds of political investigations of state legislators as part of the elections process, and even ran for the state legislature back in 2004.

WHY IMMUNITY FROM LAWSUITS MAKES SENSE

 The notion of immunity for government actors, is that they should be able to do their job free from and independent of interference by outside forces. Their immunity is predicated on their having OUR best interests at heart. Even when we disagree with them on what they do.

And on one level, this totally makes sense. After all, their jobs sometimes require unpopular actions that really are for the good of the community. 

And being freed from the burden of facing litigation, particularly, nuisance litigation, allows them to focus on what they need to focus upon.

WHY IT'S TIME TO REVISIT IMMUNITY FROM LITIGATION

But, what happens to our nation and its people, if the conduct of those protected by immunity is egregious, and done not for the public good, but for their own personal interests.  Regardless of the extensive damage they create, precisely because there are no consequences for them.

Whether it's rulings by the Supreme Court, by state legislatures and governors, or by law enforcement, the trend in our country is for those with a vested personal interest, are acting with impunity without fear of consequences for the very real harm (both in human terms and our country's fabric) they are causing. 

THE SUPREME COURT IS KILLING PEOPLE 

Harsh. Yes. True. Yes.

Samuel Alito was appointed to his position on the Supreme Court. He has never faced the voters. His positions on the right to bear arms, and women's rights to make their own healthcare decisions are out of step with majority American public opinion.

But that hasn't stopped him. Nor has the foreseeable harm he is knowingly inflicting on Americans.

His opinions are driven, not by sound and reasoned thinking. They are driven solely by his personal beliefs and vested interests. 

His rulings are both unpopular, and incredibly damaging to individuals and our nation as a whole.

Everyday people are gunned down by firearms that Alito has protected from restriction. Firearms that no signer of the US Constitution could have envisioned at the time the constitution was forged and signed into being. And, worse, despite claiming to believe in the supremacy of individual states, he drafted his opinion in such a way as to prevent states from instituting their own stricter controls  when they believe a specific type of firearm is simply too dangerous for society.

Conversely, he gutted the 40+ year federal right of women to make healthcare decisions about their own bodies claiming that only states should authorize that right. 

And as a result. Women are dying and being traumatized in ways they have not had to deal with in over 40 years.

In both decisions, his arguments wreaked of partisanship, personal beliefs, and contorted logic.

The consequences have been real and far reaching. Yet, no one can sue him, despite these foreseeable consequences being directly due to his actions. (Yes other judges had to sign onto his opinions, and they are equally responsible for the death and devastation that ensued).

He knowingly decided that people should die. But he can't be sued for that.

WHEN STATE LEGISLATURES AND GOVERNORS DEAL IN DEATH TOO

The mass scale protests over the killing by police of an unarmed Black man in Minnesota over $20 was about Americans exercising their right to protest guaranteed under the constitution.

So what was the response to these protests by some state legislatures and governors?

Laws that allow people to strike protestors with their cars and to do so scott free. Is this a danger to our citizens. 

Yes. People are already driving their cars into people who are simply exercising their right to peaceably protest.

And yet, are the legislators and governors approving these bills accountable for the foreseeable death and destruction?

Nope. You guessed it. Immunity from civil suits.

And it gets worse. State legislatures and governors banning women and kids from medical care. Forcing them into life threatening decisions and risking criminal prosecution. Doctors are fleeing those states impacting health care for more than just those directly targeted by the legislation.

They are literally sending women and children to their deaths.

And then there's those legislators and governors supported unfettered access to carrying around firearms when, as a country, we're already at a breaking point.

Innocent people are getting killed for innocent mistakes thanks to them.

But can you sue the legislators or governors for these clearly foreseeable consequences. 

You guessed it. Nope. Immunity.

Finally, we're seeing more police officers kills unarmed people. Why? You guessed it. Immunity from consequences for their actions.

Thanks to the Supreme Court's expansion of qualified immunity to require that an officer have prior notice of the danger of the officer's actions based upon a previous case of EXACTLY THE SAME fact pattern. 

And since no two cases are exactly the same, that's an incredibly high hurdle.

What it comes down to is a free pass for foreseeable disastrous consequences.

Everyone should be accountable for their actions when they knowingly harm another person. When they are not, we create a two-tier system. One of zero consequences for them, with full consequences for everyone else.

What do you think?