>>9163423 (lb)
Plenty HERE would like to help, but we'll see if it can be done HERE. Good ideas rarely get much traction HERE, in anons limited view…unless they are a namefaggots idea of course.
AKA Wormwood
NOT AT ALL. Anon is skeptical of the board, not the idea, but is interested in gathering more information.
I thought that was the only authorized uniform for membership in the BU?
Start with this, when you can get some. $25/lb off Amazon.
It has to be boiled, then strained. After that, it needs citric acid for Ph reduction and some sweetener. That'll be your "bitters" to add to club soda, resulting in tonic water. Adding alcohol (gin, vodka, etc) helps the quinine absorb into the bloodstream.
Drink to your health!
NRA shill. Dana don't give two shits about anything she's not being paid to give a shit about. Freedom, in general terms is foreign to her.
Free speech, for her
Guns, for her
Decriminalize weed…nope, that's too much freedom for Dana.
Except all Judges who have Sovereign Immunity, Cops and Prosecutors who have Qualified Immunity (which is rarely broken) and Congress who has exempted themselves from many laws.
So yeah, nobody is above the law except them…our Betters.
Absolute immunity would've been the correct word, not Sovereign. You'd have to have a non-corrupt legal system to even get them charged. Does our legal system look non-corrupt to you?
In the United States, judicial immunity is among a handful of forms of absolute immunity, along with prosecutorial immunity, legislative immunity, and witness immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has characterized judicial immunity as providing "the maximum ability [of judges] to deal fearlessly and impartially with the public".[8] The justification is as follows: because of the likelihood of innocent individuals being convicted in a court of law under false claims, the "burden" of being subjected to a court of law (a trial) would "dampen" the judges "enthusiasm" or "passion".[9] Opponents of judicial immunity argue that this doctrine is not adequately justified.[10] For example, judges could be shielded from any personal capacity liability, and still be subject to official capacity liability so that they may be held accountable for their injurious acts – thus "balancing" the "evil" to better protect the fundamental rights of victims.
Judicial immunity does not protect judges from suits stemming from administrative decisions made while off the bench, like hiring and firing decisions. But immunity generally does extend to all judicial decisions in which the judge has proper jurisdiction, even if a decision is made with "corrupt or malicious intent".[11] In 1997 West Virginia judge Troisi became so irritated with a rude defendant, he stepped down from the bench, took off his robe, and bit the defendant on the nose.[12] He pleaded no contest to state charges but was acquitted of federal charges of violating the defendant's civil rights.[13] He spent five days in jail and was put on probation.[14]
Because the immunity is attached to the judicial nature of the acts, not the official title of the officeholder, judicial immunity also applies to administrative hearings, although in some situations, only qualified immunity applies.[15] In determining whether absolute or qualified immunity should be provided, the U.S. Supreme Court has identified the following factors, according to the Shriver Center's Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys:[15]
(a) The need to assure that the individual can perform his functions without harassment or intimidation; (b) the presence of safeguards that reduce the need for private damages actions as a means of controlling unconstitutional conduct; (c) insulation from political influence; (d) the importance of precedent; (e) the adversary nature of the process; and (f) the correctability of error on appeal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_immunity