https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/21-147/

how is this not the wet dream of every second amendment fanatic? the government blatantly infringing on your rights and freedoms - how has not a single of our resident gun nuts commented on this, or seized on the opportunity to demonstrate what they always claim their guns are REALLY for?

could it be that "protection against a tyrannical government" and "we need our guns to secure our freedom™" were just excuses? just obvious bullshit in order to justify opposing any change despite kids getting slaughtered in schools?

Climate is so much better near coast anyway. Global warming in deep lands will massively increase drought, while last drops of water will be deeply pumped off by private companies.

Hard choice

you know what is in the trails now

Except that's not what the supreme court ruled, at all

The court rejected a Bivens claim, just like it did with every other Bivens claim since 1980. Its a question of whether you can sue the federal government for civil damages, which is only permitted under the narrow criterion of the FTCA, and this case tried to construct a novel application of Bivens in violation of the precedent and tried to usurp the legislative branch's prerogative to establish a tort claim and give it to the judiciary.

As the court properly ruled, if you want to make a new law: Make a new law. Petition your congressmen, don't try to conjure it out of wholecloth in the courts. Congress already created a mechanism for damage grievances against border patrol officers, under CFR 287.10. The plaintiff's argument was that this existing law was "inadequate". And that's not an argument. You don't get to argue in court that your idea for a law is better than what legislators already passed. A Bivens alternative doesn't guarantee you the judicial process you want.

good find


"Ten-Eight iS"(108):
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/understanding-tinnitus-basics

i had a terrible Tinnitus experience, hopefully i managed to cure it.

fender: supreme court confirms tyranny, and gun nuts don't care
goon-shill: this is fine, as tyranny is already established and scotus merely refused to change that. you could always petition your congressperson (spoiler alert: doesn't change shit when you live in an oligarchy like the US - only corporations and billionaires have tangible impact on legislation).

so the question remains, where do our second amendment enthusiasts stand on this? shouldn't this be impossible in a country with so many guns, which allegedly equal "protection" against the government trampling on your rights like that? i thought guns were all about securing freedom™, how is this even possible?

meh, your a leftie and no one believes u...

=====>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egbert_v._Boule
Impact
The decision reinforces the immunity of federal officers from lawsuits related to claims of violations of constitutional rights.