• @cabron_offsets
    link
    2611 months ago

    Will this have any bearing whatsoever on Jack Smith’s case?

    • @AngryCommieKender
      link
      22
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Not really. This is all theater because they are ignoring the law. As was passed, section 1983 of the federal code doesn’t allow for any immunities whatsoever, not even Qualified Immunity. President Grant called this out in 1872 the year after it passed.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html

      The next time that any sort of immunity case lands in front of SCOTUS they need multiple amicus briefs that point out the full text of the law with the 16 words that were illegally removed in 1874 added back in so that they are unable to claim that they didn’t know, the way the 1982 SCOTUS could with Harlow V Fitzgerald.

      • peopleproblems
        link
        1111 months ago

        I don’t think we should say “illegally removed”, it should be “illegally omitted” from publishing. what a mother fucking huge ass headache that dude caused

        • @AngryCommieKender
          link
          411 months ago

          Well, since The Federal Register is what is used as “the law as written and passed by Congress,” while that person did commit a lie of ommission, it has effectively become the law of the land, other than in the 1871 Congressional Record. Therefore that person illegally removed the clause from the law.