Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy malpractice insurance like doctors.
There's a bill to end qualified immunity currently. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1470
This is like saying employees should be personally liable for mistakes they make at work. Under egregious circumstances, yes. Otherwise, it’s their employer’s liability.
So yes, some immunity is necessary. The problem is the current standards of police immunity don’t seem to make sense. (I see no issue with present standards of judicial immunity.)
> Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy malpractice insurance like doctors
One, this would obviously be paid for by taxpayers. Nothing would change except some insurance brokers would make money. Two, you want a private company gating the courts? Who would you expect to impartially adjudicate their disputes?
No, it isn't--poor choice of a strawman. This judge's actions were not a "mistake", they were a deliberate abuse of power.
It's a leap to go from that to "end all immunity in all circumstances."
Almost certainly this judge abused individuals who did not have the resources to defend their rights. Perhaps the burden of proof should not be so onerous.
Maybe the solution is that the employer (in this case the WV judiciary) has the option to accept liability. If they do so, immunity is presumed. If the employer rejects the liability, then the individual must prove that they are entitled to immunity.
Obviously there's a financial incentive for an employer to deny liability, but doing so would be extremely unpopular with employees. So presumably they would be judicious depending on the circumstances.
They also weren't within the coverage of judicial immunity, so that's irrelevant.
Any employer can provide liability insurance, but only the Supreme Count can grant carte-blanche to commit crimes.
Neither qualified nor judicial immunity provide for immunity from criminal prosecution.
The current interpretation of prosecutorial immunity allows:
- initiating prosecution entirely for political or racial reasons
- falsifying evidence
- coercing false testimony
- hiding evidence
Qualified, judicial, and absolute immunities are (among others) immunities from civil, not criminal, liability that apply to public officials in different conditions.
Supreme court can only rule they are legal under current laws.
No, so can individual prosecutors and Congress, through immunity grants.
This is like saying a dentist shouldn't be personally liable for the "mistake" of raping somebody under his care. Of course he should be!
The only way you can read what was written this way is if you don’t consider rape egregious.
"Oops I tripped and accidentally fell onto his property and through his door." "Oops my tongue stumbled and I accidentally threatened to have the man arrested if he tried to film what I was doing."
Yeah right. She knew she was breaking the law, that's why she freaked out about being filmed. None of this was a mistake.
Outrageously bad. Even if unintentional, it's behaviour that obviously isn't acceptable or part of the job. Like this lady.
[1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2847
[2]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/119...
[3]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/233
Chesterton’s thousand mile long fence!