9th CIRCUIT at it again -- TASER

9th CIRCUIT CONCLUSION (posted on end of 22 Page decision) -- FULL PDF at link..

Viewing the facts, as we must, in the light most favorable to Bryan, we conclude, for the purposes of summary judgment, that Officer McPherson is not entitled to qualified immunity. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s denial of summary judgment and REMAND this case for further proceedings.

MY CONCULSION: The 9th CIRCUIT has once again proven what a bunch of IDIOTS they are.. and WE THE PEOPLE should ABOLISH this court IMMEDIATELY !!!

Your analagy is a bit extreme my friend but I get your point. I never intended to spend so much time on this thread but I guess it struck a nerve in me. Lol. Honestly I never expected the replies I got. This issue is so clear to me that I assumed all conservatives would see it exactly the same way I do. There really is no grey area. Either we the people are going to revolt against activist courts or we are going to continue to allow courts to write political policy. I pray that we the people will take the constitutionally authorized step and abolish this 9th circuit court immediately before they lead this country down a path to a point of no return. We are not at the point of no retun yet but I am afraid we are very close

After further consideration of you analogy (permission from WH ti strike target in combat) I would like to follow that thinking for a moment and apply the logic to this case. I see this case as far worse than that because the WH does have a role a HUGE role for that matter in determining POLICy. The decicion to strike or don’t strike a particular target is made by us guys on the ground who have the responsibility to carry out policy on the battlefield. We do so by operating within the guidelines of policy. We call that rules of engagement. We can argue that the POTUS is not the best person to be the sole decision maker to approve or disapprove a particular strike on a particular target at a particular time. These decisions are best made by the folks on the ground who are actively assessing the situation with the guidlines of the rules of engagement of course. What we have here in the 9th circuit taser case is far worse because now we have a court purporting to be a policymaker. Which would be akin to having the whitehouse submit a request to the 9th circuit awaiting a judges ruling so that he can send that order to the commander on the ground before striking a particular target at a particular time. Is this really the direction we want to go? I think policy decisions need to stay out of the courts and courts need to stay out of policy decisions

Precisely David. And that is why I used the analogy. LBJ use to brag about our Air Force and Navy/Marines having to get permission to literally bomb some ground target. He once used the following paraphrase.....heh heh.... they have to call me before they can drop a bomb on a shit house.
We are on the same wavelength.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.