Supreme Court, the 5 Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, uses the archaic foreign doctrine of “Sovereign Immunity” to hurt you yet again today – 3/28/2012

“Sovereign Immunity” has two rough meanings: “You can’t sue the King” and/or “The King is Immune” (such as immune from damages). These concepts get very complicated, of course, as does anything in law. A case link is below, to a fresh case from 3/28/2012.

The Republicans have made such a big issue over time, over the fact that some foreign legal doctrines are used in the USA, or that our courts use treaties sometimes (as if this is a liberal conspiracy to undermine the USA). The law has worked this way for 200+ years, and this is perfectly ordinary. — Those who say otherwise are showing off their idiocy.

I have personally heard people like Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News hosts, who do not understand law, make ignorant comments about the fact that we sometimes use foreign legal doctrines here in the USA. And then I have watched the web, as further ignorant people repeat that junk.

The Justices that were appointed by your Republican Presidents have used the archaic, unjust, and foreign, “sovereign immunity” doctrine two times in recent days to hurt employees who were trying to get some justice from their government employers. Surprise!

Should I rub it in some more? — Yes — Rush made it sound so simple in his idiocy, and so many of you bought it. Republicans and conservatives, who know an iota about the law, are perfectly well aware that very many so-called foreign legal doctrines are in daily use in the USA — In fact, while we borrowed from England, England was borrowing from France and Rome — Everything is a continuum — We build on what has gone before. Think about that.

We got our original laws from England, so it is natural that some of those doctrines might stick around — “Sovereign Immunity” is one of the more evil of those doctrines that have stuck around, and it limits peoples’ right to sue the government in many types of cases, or, as in this case, collect damages when a person’s civil rights were violated by government.

But the Justices who are embraced as heroes by the right-wing seem to love the archaic English doctrine of “Sovereign Immunity”. This is bad for workers, but I guess we got what we voted for, and many people have been sucker-punched two times in recent days — Thanks Rush and Fox — And thanks to W. I suppose — You gave us what we apparently wanted: FEWER employee rights and remedies. Congratulations to us for having our wishes fulfilled.

Here is the case: FAA v. Cooper

Article written by | Tim Willoughby