Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, October 08, 2004

Supreme Court Justices: Are they above the law?

Yo, Scalia -- Qualified immunity is ...qualified!

"A judge is not protected under the doctrine of judicial immunity, however, if the action in question is not judicial in nature, as when the judge performs an administrative, legislative, or executive act. See Stump, 435 U.S. at 360; Tucker, 118 F.3d at 933." 41/85

Meaning: When they give a public speech, they are not granted the protections of the courts, but must be civil, as any other person must be.

Well, let's not jump to conclusions:

Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246, 255 (6th Cir. 1997) ("The Supreme Court has established a two-prong test to determine whether an act is 'judicial.' First, the [c]ourt must consider whether the function is normally performed by a judge. . . . Second, the court must assess whether the parties
dealt with the judge in his or her judicial capacity
." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1075 (1998); see also Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 201 (1985) (observing that "immunity analysis rests on functional categories, not on the status of the defendant" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). An act by a judicial official need not be formal for it to constitute a judicial act. Stump, 435 U.S. at 360 (citing In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945)).

Hint: Stay away from the judges!