But there has long been a glaring exception to conservative wariness of federal power: Law-enforcement officers. Over decades, conservative judges and policy-makers have effectively placed federal law-enforcement officers above the law, freeing them from the consequences of their human frailties. As a result, good cops have found it harder to do their jobs, and law-abiding citizens across the nation have been assaulted, robbed, falsely imprisoned, and even killed by those who carry a federal badge and a gun, adding insult to their physical injuries.
Increasingly, America’s predictable rule of law is being replaced with the arbitrary and irrational rule of man, with a federal badge providing a shield of absolute immunity from accountability in cases where citizens’ constitutional rights are violated. This is true not only for federal law-enforcement officials, but also for the large number of state and local police officers deputized each year as members of joint state–federal task forces.
One reason is that conservative jurists feel duty-bound to adhere to precedent, and are thus loath to overturn earlier rulings, no matter how harmful or ill-advised they might have been. This is especially true for lower-court judges, who look to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn precedent and properly feel such actions are above their pay grade. As Judge Don Willett of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote recently in a case dealing with constitutional accountability for a Department of Homeland Security agent, “Middle-management circuit judges must salute smartly and follow precedent.”
www.nationalreview.com
Increasingly, America’s predictable rule of law is being replaced with the arbitrary and irrational rule of man, with a federal badge providing a shield of absolute immunity from accountability in cases where citizens’ constitutional rights are violated. This is true not only for federal law-enforcement officials, but also for the large number of state and local police officers deputized each year as members of joint state–federal task forces.
One reason is that conservative jurists feel duty-bound to adhere to precedent, and are thus loath to overturn earlier rulings, no matter how harmful or ill-advised they might have been. This is especially true for lower-court judges, who look to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn precedent and properly feel such actions are above their pay grade. As Judge Don Willett of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote recently in a case dealing with constitutional accountability for a Department of Homeland Security agent, “Middle-management circuit judges must salute smartly and follow precedent.”
How to Hold Federal Law-Enforcement Officers Accountable | National Review
When government employees violate citizens’ constitutional rights, they must be held liable for their actions.
www.nationalreview.com