No one is immune from criminal prosecution. The SPM invention of immunity originally appertains to damage actions. No one is asking for damages. The idea of damages is compensation. Prior to Brown v Board of Education there was Ex Parte Young i.e., officials acting ultra vires were subject to injunction. Racist pressure over Brown v Boar…
No one is immune from criminal prosecution. The SPM invention of immunity originally appertains to damage actions. No one is asking for damages. The idea of damages is compensation. Prior to Brown v Board of Education there was Ex Parte Young i.e., officials acting ultra vires were subject to injunction. Racist pressure over Brown v Board (Ex Parte Young was how it was brought) led by all of the major SPM "private" political organizations is why IMHO Earl Warren &co did this https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/386/547/. e.g., Judges in England were subject to fines for refusing to hear Habeas Corpus petitions see (italics) Crowley's Case (1818) 2 Swanst 1; 36 ER 514 long before c. 1818. Has the USSCt self abolished all means for addressing Constitutional Questions except their version of Certiorari?
No one is immune from criminal prosecution. The SPM invention of immunity originally appertains to damage actions. No one is asking for damages. The idea of damages is compensation. Prior to Brown v Board of Education there was Ex Parte Young i.e., officials acting ultra vires were subject to injunction. Racist pressure over Brown v Board (Ex Parte Young was how it was brought) led by all of the major SPM "private" political organizations is why IMHO Earl Warren &co did this https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/386/547/. e.g., Judges in England were subject to fines for refusing to hear Habeas Corpus petitions see (italics) Crowley's Case (1818) 2 Swanst 1; 36 ER 514 long before c. 1818. Has the USSCt self abolished all means for addressing Constitutional Questions except their version of Certiorari?