Jump to content

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you start off with nonsense about how it's unusual that it's judge-made law in the US.  And that it was somehow devious or incredible.

The default rule in the US, and most other jurisdictions, is that governments, government agencies, and government officials are immune from suit and from any damages from that suit.

Then you said interlocutory appeals are wrong. And I explained how interlocutory appeals of immunity issues make perfect sense.

The doctrine has completely understandable origins and was an effort by judges to mitigate the harshness of sovereign immunity, which completely bars suit and damages, for any kind of harm.

It has come to be an unwarranted burden on suits against cops, but not so much through any of the foregoing, but through the clearly established constitutional right rubric.

I take some "pride" in explaining the nuances of legal issues to laypeople or the "peanut gallery" on here.  So do a number of others, to include brisket, GoLL and others.

So when someone comes on here misrepresenting law and legal analysis, I am going to counter them.  There's already enough bad legal analysis in the press and elsewhere.

You’re misrepresenting the process. The governmental actor can assert immunity at the court level. They can assert it and stop the litigation process almost completely. They don’t need/deserve a special, Judge made right of appeal. You’re completely misrepresenting that part of the process. That’s what lay people need to understand. I just do it in a less condescending way.
It’s pretty sad you represent your opinions as some sort of non-biased legal analysis because it isn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

You’re misrepresenting the process. The governmental actor can assert immunity at the court level. They can assert it and stop the litigation process almost completely. They don’t need/deserve a special, Judge made right of appeal. You’re completely misrepresenting that part of the process. That’s what lay people need to understand. I just do it in a less condescending way.
It’s pretty sad you represent your opinions as some sort of non-biased legal analysis because it isn’t. 

Geezus Gawd.

I explained that in immunity, which includes immunity from suit, if a government is denied the ability to assert that immunity early in the case, then it should have the ability to immediately appeal that ruling or the benefit of immunity is lost.

That is a pretty necessary feature of having immunity from suit.  If you have to go through the whole suit to win your immunity, the immunity is more than half lost.

You can quibble about whether or under what circumstances immunity is granted or denied, which is the issue here, but if it is an immunity, the right to interlocutory appeal is a necessary feature of that.

And, on the contrary, I explain the nuances of the law without judgment as to whether the feature is wrong or right, just why it is and how it works.

You, on the other hand, let your view of the end result (bad) condemn every aspect of the process.  Which is facile.

The problem is not whether immunity is decided on motion to dismiss, summary judgment, or some other stage.  Nor is it whether an interlocutory appeal is available.  The problem is the standard for the grant of immunity.  Or the existence of immunity  at all.

Note that I am able to explain these things mostly without reference to you or your opinions.  You can't do the same.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Geezus Gawd.

I explained that in immunity, which includes immunity from suit, if a government is denied the ability to assert that immunity early in the case, then it should have the ability to immediately appeal that ruling or the benefit of immunity is lost.

That is a pretty necessary feature of having immunity from suit.  If you have to go through the whole suit to win your immunity, the immunity is more than half lost.

You can quibble about whether or under what circumstances immunity is granted or denied, which is the issue here, but if it is an immunity, the right to interlocutory appeal is a necessary feature of that.

And, on the contrary, I explain the nuances of the law without judgment as to whether the feature is wrong or right, just why it is and how it works.

You, on the other hand, let your view of the end result (bad) condemn every aspect of the process.  Which is facile.

The problem is not whether immunity is decided on motion to dismiss, summary judgment, or some other stage.  Nor is it whether an interlocutory appeal is available.  The problem is the standard for the grant of immunity.  Or the existence of immunity  at all.

Note that I am able to explain these things mostly without reference to you or your opinions.  You can't do the same.

How is that different than any other defense tI suit? Why does this immunity get special treatment? 
Let’s just lay this out. You can be murdered by a police officer in your own home. If your family finds a lawyer willing to go through the process we’re arguing about, your lawyer files suit. Police officer asserts QI. This stops down all litigation. No discovery, nothing. Your lawyer is completely denied any procedural weapons. The Federal Judge evaluates the issue, correctly denies the ridiculous claim of immunity. The police officer then appeals the denial of immunity. This stops down the process completely again. The fifth circuit takes 2 years deciding whether the ridiculous claim of immunity is correct. They eventually deny the ridiculous claim of immunity. Your family is now at least 3 years into litigation dealing with a completely frivolous claim. Only at this point is your lawyer allowed to engsgr in discovery, then a couple more years until you get your trial date.

Although the police are able to assert QI, have their day in court, Twice thinks this process is necessary and fair. I do not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...