Today's Must-Read: We're Screwed

The Supreme Court seems to feel that police need to be protected from accountability when they shoot someone on a whim:

In recent years, the justices have regularly shielded police from being sued, even when officers wrongly shoot innocent people in their own homes.

They have done so by extending a rule adopted in the 1980s that gave government officials "qualified immunity" from being sued over constitutional violations unless they did something that the court already had clearly defined as illegal and unconstitutional. It is not enough to cite the words of the Constitution, such as its ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." To bring a claim before a jury, the injured plaintiff must show the officer had obviously and unquestionably violated a recognized and specific right. In practice, this rule has served as a broad shield to prevent cases from proceeding.

There's a pending case described in the opening paragraphs of this article that may change this course, but I have no confidence that this Court will see fit to protect civilians from police misconduct: they're real big on authority. There is one small ray of hope, however:

Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas cited law professor Baude's criticism of the court's approach to these cases. "In the appropriate case, we should reconsider our qualified immunity jurisprudence," he wrote.

Yes, you read that right: Clarence Thomas wrote that.

However, given the Court's tortured reasoning in cases such as Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, I can hardly wait to see what rationale they'll come up with should they decide in favor of the police.

Yes, read the whole thing -- some of the incidents described are appalling.