What is the possible rationale for voting *against* tribal sovereignty in cases like today's? "The treaties we signed impose responsibilities it would be a bummer to fulfill"? What?
-
Ah, the ol' "but we already disregarded this law and didn't get in trouble." Well, it works in qualified immunity cases, why not try it here
Gorsuch blasts those lawless arguments "Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking...to hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law."
-
-
Would that he treated qualified immunity the same.
-
I think it shows, among other things, which issues are part of inviolable Federalist Society orthodoxy and which allow individual jurists some latitude
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.